BASES ON THE COURT’S DISCIPLINARY POWERS OVER JUSTICES AND

JUDGES

1. The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 transferred the administrative

supervision of all courts and their personnel from the Department of
Justice to the Supreme Court.  This was affirmed by Article VIII, Section 6
of the 1987 Constitution.  To effectively discharge this constitutional mandate,
the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) was created under Presidential
Decree No. 828, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 842 (and its functions
further strengthened by a resolution of the Supreme Court en banc dated
October 24, 1996). Its principal function is the supervision and administration of
the lower courts throughout the Philippines and all their personnel. 1

2. Section 6, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution

It grants the Supreme Court administrative supervision over all courts and
their personnel. This grant empowers the Supreme Court to oversee the judges’
and court personnel’s administrative compliance with all laws, rules, and
regulations, and to take administrative actions against them if they violate these
legal norms.

3. Section 11, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution

The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall hold office
during good behavior until they reach the age of seventy years or become
incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office. Complaints against justices and
judges are filed with the Supreme Court, which has exclusive administrative
supervisions over all courts and the personnel thereof pursuant to Sec. 6, Article
VIII, 1987 Constitution. The Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to
discipline judges of lower courts, or order their dismissal by a vote of a
majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the
issues in the case and voted thereon.
Note : Should the complaint be filed with the IBP, the case will not be dismissed. In such
case, the IBP is required to forward to the Court for appropriate disposition all
complaints for disbarment and discipline filed with the IBP against all justices and
judges, sitting or retired, for acts/or omissions committed during their tenure in the
judiciary.
In Re : First Indorsement from Honorable Raul M. Gonzalez dated 16 March
1968 Requesting Honorable Justice Marcelo B. Fernan to Comment on an
Anonymous Letter Complaint, A.M. No. 88-4-5433, April 15, 1988
A public officer who under the Constitution is required to be a member of the
Philippine Bar as qualification for the office held by him and who may be removed from
office only by impeachment, cannot be charged with disbarment during the
incumbency of such officer

1
https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/about/gov/judiciary/
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST JUDGES AND JUSTICES
A.M. NO. 01-8-10-SC

DISCIPLINE OF JUDGES OF REGULAR AND SPECIAL COURTS AND JUSTICES

OF THE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE SANDIGANBAYAN
SECTION 1. How instituted. - Proceedings for the discipline of judges of regular and
special courts and Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan may be
instituted motu proprio by the Supreme Court or upon a verified complaint, supported by
affidavits of person who have personal knowledge of the facts alleged therein or by
documents which may substantiate said allegations, or upon an anonymous complaint,
supported by public records of indubitable integrity. The complaint shall be in writing
and shall state clearly and concisely the acts and omissions constituting violations of
standards of conduct prescribed for Judges by law, the Rules of Court, or the Code of
Judicial Conduct.
SEC. 2. Action on the complaint. - If the complaint is sufficient in form and substance,
a copy thereof shall be served upon the respondent, and he shall be required to
comment within ten (10) days from the date of service. Otherwise, the same shall be
dismissed.
SEC. 3. By whom complaint investigated. - Upon the filing of the respondent's
comment, or upon the expiration of the time for filing the same and unless other
pleadings or documents are required, the Court shall refer the matter to the Office of the
Court Administrator for evaluation, report, and recommendation or assign the case for
investigation, report, and recommendation to a retired member of the Supreme Court, if
the respondent is a Justice of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan, or to a
Justice of the Court of Appeals, if the respondent is a Judge of a Regional Trial Court or
of a special court of equivalent rank, or to a Judge of the Regional Trial Court if the
respondent is a Judge of an inferior court.
SEC. 4. Hearing. - the investigating Justice or Judge shall set a day of the hearing and
send notice thereof to both parties. At such hearing the parties may present oral and
documentary evidence. If, after due notice, the respondent fails to appear, the
investigation shall proceed ex parte.
The Investigating Justice or Judge shall terminate the investigation within ninety (90)
days from the date of its commencement or within such extension as the Supreme
Court may grant.
SEC. 5. Report. - Within thirty (30) days from the termination of the investigation, the
investigating Justice or Judge shall submit to the Supreme Court a report containing
findings of fact and recommendation. The report shall be accompanied by the record
containing the evidence and the pleadings filed by the parties. The report shall be
confidential and shall be for the exclusive use of the Court.
SEC. 6. Action. - The Court shall take such action on the report as the facts and the
law may warrant.
SEC. 7. Classification of charges. - Administrative charges are classified as serious,
less serious, or light.
SEC. 8. Serious charges. - Serious charges include:
 1. Bribery, direct or indirect;
2. Dishonesty and violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Law (R.A. No.
3019);
3. Gross misconduct constituting violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct;
4. Knowingly rendering an unjust judgment or order as determined by a competent
court in an appropriate proceeding;
5. Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude;
6. Willful failure to pay a just debt;
7. Borrowing money or property from lawyers and litigants in a case pending before
the court;
8. Immorality;
9. Gross ignorance of the law or procedure;
10. Partisan political activities; and
11. Alcoholism and/or vicious habits.
SEC. 9. Less Serious Charges. - Less serious charges include:
1. Undue delay in rendering a decision or order, or in transmitting the records of a
case;
2. Frequently and unjustified absences without leave or habitual tardiness;
3. Unauthorized practice of law;
4. Violation of Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars;
5. Receiving additional or double compensation unless specifically authorized by
law;
6. Untruthful statements in the certificate of service; and
7. Simple Misconduct.
SEC. 10. Light Charges. - Light charges include:
1. Vulgar and unbecoming conduct;
2. Gambling in public;
3. Fraternizing with lawyers and litigants with pending case/cases in his court; and
4. Undue delay in the submission of monthly reports.
SEC. 11. Sanctions. - A. If the respondent is guilty of a serious charge, 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; or
3. A fine of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00
B. If the respondent is guilty of a less serious charge, any of the following sanctions
shall be imposed:
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.
C. If the respondent is guilty of a light charge, 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.
SEC. 12. Confidentiality of proceedings. - Proceedings against Judges of regular and
special courts and Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan shall be
private and confidential, but a copy of the decision or resolution of the court shall be
attached to the record of the respondent in the Office of the Court Administrator.
These amendments to Rule 140 shall take effect on October 1, 2001 following their
publication in two newspapers of general circulation on or before September 15, 2001.
 FLOW CHART OF SECTION 1 TO SECTION 6

Other
wise,
dismis
sed.
motu proprio by the SC
Judges (Regular & Special Courts)

Sufficient in form & substance

START HERE

Justices (CA & SB)

may be instituted

verified complaint + affidavits

And

(person with knowledge of facts

alleged)/documents (substantiate
said allegations) copy of compaints
served upon
Respondent (R)
Within 10
days from
anonymous complaint + the date of
public records of indubitable service, the
integrity (R) shall be
required to
comment

If, (R) is a
Investigating Justice of the
Justice/Judge CA & SB Retired
(IJ) shall set a member of For:
day for 1. evaluation
SC
hearing and 2. report or
send notice to 3. recommendation
both parties

If, (R) is a Judge of

RTC or Special Courts
Parties may Court shall
of equivalent rank Office of the Court refer the matter
present oral & Administrator to
documentary
Justice of CA
evidence
Upon:
1. Filing of
Or
respondent’s
1. assign the case
comment
Investigation for investigation
2. Expiration
ex parte for 2. report and
failure to
of time for
3. recommendation
appear after filing
to
due notice If, (R) is a Judge 3. Other
of Inferior Courts pleadings or
docs are
Judge of required
RTC

1. accompanied by record
containing evidence &
pleadings filed by parties
Terminate investigation 2. shall be confidential
wtihin 90 days from the date 3. exclusive use of the court
of its commencement or
within such extension as the
SC may grant
 report containing findings of fact & report as the facts and the
recommendation law may warrant.

DOCTRINES/JURISPRUDENCE

AGAINST JUDGES2
Administrative complaint against — A party’s recourse, if prejudiced by a judge’s
orders in the course of a trial, is with the proper reviewing court and not with the OCA,
through an administrative complaint. (Atty. Tamondong vs. Judge Pasal, A.M. No. RTJ-
16-2467, Oct. 18, 2017)

—      An administrative complaint is not the appropriate remedy for every act of a judge
deemed aberrant or irregular where a judicial remedy exists and is available; a judge
cannot be civilly, criminally, or administratively liable for his official acts, no matter how
erroneous, provided he acts in good faith. (Atty. Tamondong vs. Judge Pasal, A.M. No.
RTJ-16-2467, Oct. 18, 2017)

—      Ordinary remedies and extraordinary remedies against error or irregularities,

enumerated; disciplinary proceedings and criminal actions against judges are not
complementary or suppletory of, nor a substitute for, these judicial remedies, whether
ordinary or extraordinary; only after the available judicial remedies have been
exhausted and the appellate tribunals have spoken with finality, that the door to an
inquiry into his criminal, civil, or administrative liability may be said to have opened, or
closed; application. (Atty. Tamondong vs. Judge Pasal, A.M. No. RTJ-16-2467, Oct. 18,
2017)

Bribery — Whether direct or indirect, can seriously affect the public’s trust in every
subdivision and agency of government, more so in the judiciary. (Office of the Court
Administrator vs. Judge Alinea, Jr., A.M. No. MTJ-05-1574, Nov. 07, 2017)

Code of Judicial Conduct — A judge should diligently discharge administrative

responsibilities, maintain professional competence in court management, and facilitate
the performance of the administrative functions of other judges and court personnel; a
judge should organize and supervise the court personnel to ensure the prompt and
efficient dispatch of business, and require at all times the observance of high standards
of public service and fidelity. (Re: Report on the Preliminary Results of the Spot Audit in
the RTC, Br. 170, Malabon City, A.M. No. 16-05-142-RTC, Sept. 05, 2017)

—      Requires judges to exemplify propriety at all times in order to preserve public
confidence in the judiciary. (OCA vs. Judge Buyucan, A.M. No. MTJ-15-1854, July 11,
2017)

Conduct — Mere imputation of bias and partiality against a judge is insufficient

because bias and partiality can never be presumed; bad faith or malice cannot be
inferred simply because the judgment is adverse to a party. (Atty. Tamondong vs. Judge
Pasal, A.M. No. RTJ-16-2467, Oct. 18, 2017)

Conduct unbecoming of a judge –– Judges must at all times conduct themselves in a

manner beyond reproach to ensure the public’s continued confidence in the judiciary;
the judge’s act of attempting to sell rice to his employees and to employees of other
branches was highly improper; imposable penalty. (Mendoza vs. Hon. Diasen, Jr., A.M.
No. MTJ-17-1900, Aug. 09, 2017)

2
Supreme Court of the Philippines Case Index 2017
Direct bribery — Involves the act of a public officer in accepting an offer or promise, or
receiving a gift, by himself or another, with a view to perform a crime or an unjust act, or
commit an omission, which is connected to his official duties; it is a crime involving
moral turpitude, an act which is done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good
morals, and involves an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private duties
which a man owes his fellowmen, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and
customary rule of right and duty between man and woman, or conduct contrary to
justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals, and which renders any person convicted of
the said offense unfit to continue discharging his duties as a public official or a lawyer.
(Office of the Court Administrator vs. Judge Alinea, Jr., A.M. No. MTJ-05-1574, Nov. 07,
2017)

Discipline of — A disciplinary case against a judge or justice brought before the
Supreme Court is an administrative proceeding; it is subject to the rules and principles
governing administrative procedures. (Anonymous Complaint vs. Judge Dagala, A.M.
No. MTJ-16-1886, July 25, 2017)

—      Proceedings for the discipline of judges and justices of lower courts may be
instituted in three ways: by the Supreme Court motu proprio, through a verified
complaint, and through an anonymous complaint; a verified complaint must be
supported by affidavits of persons who have personal knowledge of the facts alleged or
by documents which may substantiate the allegations; an anonymous complaint, on the
other hand, should be supported by public records of indubitable integrity; while
anonymous complaints should always be treated with great caution, the anonymity of
the complaint does not, in itself, justify its outright dismissal. (Anonymous
Complaint vs. Judge Dagala, A.M. No. MTJ-16-1886, July 25, 2017)

Duties — As the administrative officer who has authority over the office of the clerk of
court, judges should be familiar with the different circulars of the Court as his duty is not
confined to adjudicatory functions, but includes the administrative responsibility of
organizing and supervising the court personnel to secure a prompt and efficient
dispatch of business. (OCA vs. Judge Buyucan, A.M. No. MTJ-15-1854, July 11, 2017)

—      Includes the administrative responsibility of organizing and supervising the court
personnel to secure a prompt and efficient dispatch of business; it is his responsibility to
see to it that the clerk of court performs his duties and observes the circulars issued by
the Supreme Court. (OCA vs. Judge Buyucan, A.M. No. MTJ-15-1854, July 11, 2017)

—      Should exercise judicial temperament in all dealings and must maintain
composure and equanimity at all times. (OCA vs. Judge Buyucan, A.M. No. MTJ-15-
1854, July 11, 2017)

—      The acting judge may no longer promulgate decisions when the regular judge has
already assumed the position; Circular No. 5-98, however, provides an exception, i.e.,
the acting judge, despite the assumption to duty of the regular judge or the designation
of an acting presiding judge, shall decide cases which are already submitted for
decision at the time of the latter’s assumption or designation. (Chua vs. People, G.R.
No. 195248, Nov. 22, 2017)

—      The judge must, at all times, remain in full control of the proceedings in
his sala and should adopt a firm policy against improvident postponements; importantly,
he should follow the time limit set for deciding cases. (Sps. Sibay vs. Sps. Bermudez,
G.R. No. 198196, July 17, 2017)
Grave misconduct — Misconduct is considered grave where the elements of
corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules are
present. (Anonymous Complaint vs. Judge Dagala, A.M. No. MTJ-16-1886, July 25,
2017)

—      Wanton disregard and mockery of the proper procedure in mediation of cases, as

correctly held by the OCA, was tantamount to misconduct; the misconduct committed by
the judge was grave since the circumstances obtaining established her flagrant
disregard of the rules on referral of cases for mediation. (Re: Anonymous Complaints
against Hon. Dinah Bandong, former Presiding Judge, RTC, Br. 59, Lucena City,
Quezon Province, A.M. No. RTJ-17-2507, Oct. 09, 2017)

Gross ignorance of the law — A judge not assigned to the province, city, or
municipality where the case is pending but approves an application for bail filed by an
accused not arrested is guilty of gross ignorance of the law; for purposes of determining
whether or not the accused is in custody of the law, the mode required is arrest, not
voluntary surrender, before a judge of another province, city, or municipality may grant a
bail application; it is gross ignorance of the law if a judge grants an application for bail in
a criminal case outside of his or her jurisdiction without ascertaining the absence or
unavailability of the judge of the court where the criminal case is pending. (Prosecutor
Tejano vs. Presiding Judge Marigomen, A.M. No. RTJ-17-2492, Sept. 26, 2017)

—    A serious charge, punishable by dismissal from service, suspension from office
without salary and other benefits for more than three (3) but not exceeding six (6)
months, or a fine of more than P20,000.00 but not
exceeding P40,000.00. (Recto vs. Hon. Trocino, A.M. No. RTJ-17-2508, Nov. 07,
2017)      

—      Gross ignorance of the law is a serious charge under Sec. 8, Rule 140 of the
Rules of Court; under Sec. 11(A) thereof, it is punishable by: (1) dismissal from the
service, forfeiture of benefits except accrued leave credits and disqualification from
reinstatement or appointment to any public office; (2) suspension from office without
salary or other benefits for more than three (3) months but not exceeding six (6)
months; or (3) a fine of more than P20,000.00 but not
exceeding P40,000.00. (Alfelor vs. Hon. Diaz, A.M. No. MTJ-16-1883, July 11, 2017)

—    The disregard of the basic rules and settled jurisprudence; a judge owes it to his
office to simply apply the law when the law or a rule is basic and the facts are evident;
not to know it or to act as if one does not know it constitutes gross ignorance of the law.
(Recto vs. Hon. Trocino, A.M. No. RTJ-17-2508, Nov. 07, 2017)

—      The fact that he had served more than 21 years in the judiciary meant that he
should have known better than to haphazardly render a decision in a criminal case
without regard to the specific allegations in the offense charged and his jurisdiction, or
lack thereof, to take cognizance of the case. (Alfelor vs. Hon. Diaz, A.M. No. MTJ-16-
1883, July 11, 2017)

—      There is gross ignorance of the law when an error committed by the judge
was gross or patent, deliberate or malicious; it may also be committed when a judge
ignores, contradicts or fails to apply settled law and jurisprudence because of bad faith,
fraud, dishonesty or corruption; gross ignorance of the law or incompetence cannot be
excused by a claim of good faith. (Alfelor vs. Hon. Diaz, A.M. No. MTJ-16-1883, July 11,
2017)
Gross negligence –– The leniency of a judge in the administrative supervision of his
employees is an undesirable trait; the judge’s failure to meet the exacting standards of
his position, as evidenced by the number and different irregularities discovered to have
been occurring in his court, as well as his failure to eliminate these irregularities,
establish that he was grossly negligent in the performance of his duties.
(OCA vs. Retired Judge Chavez, A.M. No. RTJ-10-2219, Aug. 01, 2017)

Immorality — A judge was dismissed from service for siring a child outside of wedlock
and for engaging in an extramarital affair; the absence of a public and private dichotomy
when it comes to the ethical standards expected of judges and justices has since
become an unyielding doctrine as consistently applied by the Supreme Court.
(Anonymous Complaint vs. Judge Dagala, A.M. No. MTJ-16-1886, July 25, 2017)

—      Immorality is a valid ground for sanctioning members of the Judiciary because it:
(1) challenges his or her capacity to dispense justice; (2) erodes the faith and
confidence of the public in the administration of justice; and (3) impacts the Judiciary’s
legitimacy; while a disciplinary case for immorality may proceed even without the
participation of the spouse, the children or the alleged paramour, steps must be taken to
protect their decision not to air out their grievances in administrative proceedings before
us. (Anonymous Complaint vs. Judge Dagala, A.M. No. MTJ-16-1886, July 25, 2017)

Liability of — A judge becomes liable for gross ignorance of the law when there is a
patent disregard for well-known rules so as to produce an inference of bad faith,
dishonesty and corruption. (Erice vs. Presiding Judge Sison, A.M. No. RTJ-15-2407,
Nov. 22, 2017)

—      Absence of criminal liability does not preclude disciplinary action; as in the case of
disciplinary action of lawyers, acquittal of criminal charges is not a bar to administrative
proceedings; Supreme Court has reminded judges that their acts of immorality are
proscribed and punished, even if committed in their private life and outside of
their salas, because such acts erode the faith and confidence of the public in the
administration of justice and in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. (Anonymous
Complaint vs. Judge Dagala, A.M. No. MTJ-16-1886, July 25, 2017)

—      Penalty may be increased where the judge had been previously found guilty of
gross ignorance of the law. (Prosecutor Tejano vs. Presiding Judge Marigomen, A.M.
No. RTJ-17-2492, Sept. 26, 2017)

—      To hold a judge administratively liable for gross misconduct, ignorance of the law
or incompetence of official acts in the exercise of judicial functions and duties, it must be
shown that his acts were committed with fraud, dishonesty, corruption, malice or ill-will,
bad faith, or deliberate intent to do an injustice; absent such proof, the judge is
presumed to have acted in good faith in exercising his judicial functions. (Re: Report on
the Preliminary Results of the Spot Audit in the RTC, Br. 170, Malabon City, A.M. No.
16-05-142-RTC, Sept. 05, 2017)

—      Use of an improvised system of counting the applicants (instead of the

applications) in the special raffle is simply unacceptable, as the Executive Judge, much
less the Clerk of Court, has absolutely no discretion to deviate from the prescribed ratio
for the raffling of cases without prior approval from this court. (Re: Report on the
Preliminary Results of the Spot Audit in the RTC, Br. 170, Malabon City, A.M. No. 16-
05-142-RTC, Sept. 05, 2017)
Misconduct — A transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more
particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public office; the misconduct is
grave if it involves any of the additional elements of corruption, willful intent to violate
the law or to disregard established rules, which must be proved by substantial evidence.
(Re: Report on the Preliminary Results of the Spot Audit in the RTC, Br. 170, Malabon
City, A.M. No. 16-05-142-RTC, Sept. 05, 2017)

Neglect of duty — Gross neglect of duty is classified as a grave offense punishable by

dismissal from the service, even for the first offense, while simple neglect of duty is
a less grave offense, punishable by suspension without pay for one (1) month and one
(1) day to six (6) months for the first offense. (Re: Report on the Preliminary Results of
the Spot Audit in the RTC, Br. 170, Malabon City, A.M. No. 16-05-142-RTC, Sept. 05,
2017)

—      Gross neglect of duty or gross negligence refers to negligence characterized by

the want of even slight care, or by acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a
duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference
to the consequences, in so far as other persons may be affected. (Re: Report on the
Preliminary Results of the Spot Audit in the RTC, Br. 170, Malabon City, A.M. No. 16-
05-142-RTC, Sept. 05, 2017)

New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary — Canon 6, Sec. 5 of

the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary mandates that “judges
shall perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently,
fairly and with reasonable promptness”; the speedy disposition of cases is the primary
aim of the Judiciary; rationale. (Atty. Tamondong vs. Judge Pasal, A.M. No. RTJ-16-
2467, Oct. 18, 2017)

Serious misconduct and gross ignorance of the law and/or procedure — The

Judge utterly failed to decide the cases submitted for decision or resolve pending
incidents within the reglementary period as well as within the time frame that he himself
fixed in the initial Action Plan; the judicial audit team also found errors or irregularities in
several orders he issued and noted that his wife meddled or interfered with the court’s
business; penalty. (Re: Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC, Br. 20, Cagayan de Oro
City, Misamis Oriental, A.M. No. 14-11-350-RTC, Dec. 05, 2017)

Simple neglect of duty — For failure to observe the procedure on the raffle of cases
pursuant to A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC, judge is guilty of simple neglect of duty which is
defined as the failure to give attention to a task, or the disregard of a duty due to
carelessness or indifference; simple neglect of duty is listed as one of the less grave
offenses. (Ferrer, Jr. vs. Judge Dating, A.M. No. RTJ-16-2478, Nov. 08, 2017)

Undue delay in rendering a decision or order — Every judge should decide cases

with dispatch and should be careful, punctual, and observant in the performance of his
functions for delay in the disposition of cases erodes the faith and confidence of the
people in the Judiciary, lowers its standards, and brings it into disrepute; failure to
resolve the Motion for Reconsideration within the 30-day reglementary period is not
excusable and warrants the imposition of administrative sanctions upon him. (Atty.
Tamondong vs. Judge Pasal, A.M. No. RTJ-16-2467, Oct. 18, 2017)

—      If the judge found himself unable to comply with the mandatory 30-day
reglementary period for resolving the Motion for Reconsideration, he could have asked
the Court for a reasonable extension of time to do so, but he made no such request; a
judge cannot by himself choose to prolong the period for deciding cases beyond that
authorized by law. (Atty. Tamondong vs. Judge Pasal, A.M. No. RTJ-16-2467, Oct. 18,
2017)

—      The 90-day period within which to decide cases is mandatory; failure of a judge to
decide a case within the prescribed period is inexcusable and constitutes gross
inefficiency warranting a disciplinary sanction; the Court has allowed reasonable
extensions of time needed to decide cases, but such extensions must first be requested
from the Court; penalty. (Fajardo vs. Judge Natino, A.M. No. RTJ-16-2479, Dec. 13,
2017) 

—      Undue delay in rendering a decision or order is a less serious charge; penalty.

(Atty. Tamondong vs. Judge Pasal, A.M. No. RTJ-16-2467, Oct. 18, 2017)

Violation of Supreme Court Circulars, Rules and Directives — In Executive Judge

Apita v. Estanislao, the Court had the occasion to explain that: While the 2002 Revised
Manual for Clerks of Court which defines the general functions of all court personnel in
the judiciary provides that court personnel may perform other duties the presiding judge
may assign from time to time, said additional duties must be directly related to, and
must not significantly vary from, the court personnel’s job description; Sec. 7, Canon IV
of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel expressly states that court personnel shall
not be required to perform any work outside the scope of their job description. (Re:
Anonymous Complaints against Hon. Dinah Bandong, former Presiding Judge, RTC, Br.
59, Lucena City, Quezon Province, A.M. No. RTJ-17-2507, Oct. 09, 2017)

Administrative complaint against — A mere imputation of bias and partiality against

a judge is insufficient because bias and partiality can never be presumed; since bad
faith or malice cannot be inferred simply because the judgment is adverse to a party,  it
is incumbent upon the complainants to prove that respondent judge was manifestly
partial against them. (Biado vs. Hon. Brawner-Cualing, A.M. No. MTJ-17-1891, Feb. 15,
2017)
—      An administrative complaint is not the appropriate remedy for every act of a Judge
deemed aberrant or irregular where a judicial remedy exists and is available; it must be
underscored that the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to
disciplinary action; he cannot be civilly, criminally, or administratively liable for his official
acts, no matter how erroneous, provided he acts in good faith. (Biado vs. Hon. Brawner-
Cualing, A.M. No. MTJ-17-1891, Feb. 15, 2017)
—      Awards for outstanding performances as a professional and as a judge, far from
accenting her good qualities as a person, rather highlighted her unworthiness to remain
on the Bench by showing that her misconduct and general bad attitude as a member
thereof has put the awards and recognitions in serious question. (Office of the Court
Administrator vs. Judge Yu, A.M. No. MTJ-12-1813, Mar. 14, 2017)
—      Good faith implies the lack of any intention to commit a wrongdoing; based on the
totality of respondent’s acts and actuations, her claims of good faith and lack of intent to
commit a wrong cannot be probable. (Office of the Court Administrator vs. Judge Yu,
A.M. No. MTJ-12-1813, Mar. 14, 2017)
—      It is well-settled that “in administrative proceedings, the burden of proof that
respondents committed the acts complained of rests on the complainant; extrinsic
evidence is required to establish bias, bad faith, malice or corrupt purpose, in addition to
the palpable error that may be inferred from the decision or order itself.”
(Rizalado vs. Judge Bollozos, OCA IPI No. 11-3800-RTJ, June 19, 2017)
—      Misdemeanor as a member of the bench could also cause expulsion from the
legal profession through disbarment. (Office of the Court Administrator vs. Judge Yu,
A.M. No. MTJ-12-1813, Mar. 14, 2017)
—      Respondent voluntarily waived her right to be present and to confront the
complainants and their witnesses and evidence during the administrative investigation.
(Office of the Court Administrator vs. Judge Yu, A.M. No. MTJ-12-1813, Mar. 14, 2017)
—      The filing of an administrative complaint is not the proper remedy for the
correction of actions of a judge perceived to have gone beyond the norms of propriety,
where a sufficient judicial remedy exists. (Rizalado vs. Judge Bollozos, OCA IPI No. 11-
3800-RTJ, June 19, 2017)
—      Voluminous records of cases constituted proof of administrative wrongdoings and
sufficed to warrant the supreme action of respondent’s removal from the judiciary.
(Office of the Court Administrator vs. Judge Yu, A.M. No. MTJ-12-1813, Mar. 14, 2017)
Archiving of a criminal case –– A.C. No. 7-A-92 enumerated the circumstances when
a judge  may order the archiving of a criminal case as follows: (a) If after the issuance of
the warrant of arrest, the accused remains at large for six (6) months from the delivery
of the warrant to the proper peace officer, and the latter has explained the reason why
the accused was not apprehended; or (b) When proceedings are ordered suspended for
an indefinite period because: (1) the accused appears to be suffering from an unsound
mental condition which effectively renders him unable to fully understand  the charge
against him and to plead intelligently, or to undergo trial, and he has to be committed to
a mental hospital; (2) a valid prejudicial question in a civil action is invoked during the
pendency of the criminal case unless the civil and the criminal cases are consolidated;
3) an interlocutory order or incident in the criminal case is elevated to, and is pending
resolution/decision for an indefinite period before a higher court which has issued a
temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction; and 4) when the accused
has jumped bail before arraignment and cannot be arrested by his bondsman. (Judge
Marcos vs. Hon. Cabrera-Faller, A.M. No. RTJ-16-2472, Jan. 24, 2017)
Bias and partiality — The totality of the circumstances and the actuations of the
respondent judge attendant to the case, clearly lead to the inescapable conclusion that
the respondent judge evidently favoured a party is a clear indicium of bias and partiality
that calls for a severe administrative sanction. (Dr. Sunico vs. Judge Gutierrez, A.M. No.
RTJ-16-2457, Feb. 21, 2017)
Conduct of –– A judge may dismiss the case for lack of probable cause only in clear-
cut cases when the evidence on record plainly fails to establish probable cause; that is
when the records readily show uncontroverted, and thus, established facts which
unmistakably negate the existence of the elements of the crime charged. (Judge
Marcos vs. Hon. Cabrera-Faller, A.M. No. RTJ-16-2472, Jan. 24, 2017)
––      Although a motion to dismiss the case or withdraw the Information is addressed
to the court, its grant or denial must always be in the faithful exercise of
judicial discretion and prerogative; for the judge’s action must neither impair the
substantial rights of the accused nor the right of the State and the offended party to due
process of law. (Judge Marcos vs. Hon. Cabrera-Faller, A.M. No. RTJ-16-2472, Jan. 24,
2017)
––     Code of Judicial Conduct requires a judge to be the embodiment of competence,
integrity and independence; they are likewise mandated to be faithful to the law and to
maintain professional competence at all times. (Judge Marcos vs. Hon. Cabrera-Faller,
A.M. No. RTJ-16-2472, Jan. 24, 2017)
––      Courtesy is likewise expected of him, in his conduct and language, towards his
subordinates; the use of vile and demeaning words should be completely avoided.
(Judge Barcena vs. Clerk of Court II Abadilla, A.M. No. P-16-3564, Jan. 24, 2017)
––      Judges are duty bound to render just, correct and impartial decisions at all times
in a manner free of any suspicion as to his fairness, impartiality or integrity; public
confidence in the Judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct of judges; the
appearance of bias or prejudice can be as damaging to public confidence and the
administration of justice as actual bias or prejudice. (Judge Marcos vs. Hon. Cabrera-
Faller, A.M. No. RTJ-16-2472, Jan. 24, 2017)
—      Presiding judges of all trial courts are mandated to wear a judicial robe during
court sessions; penalty for violation. (Mclaren vs. Hon. Gonzales, A.M. No. MTJ-16-
1876, April 26, 2017)
—      Public confidence in the judiciary can only be achieved when the court personnel
conduct themselves in a dignified manner befitting the public office they are holding;
judges should avoid conduct or any demeanor that may tarnish or diminish the authority
of the Supreme Court. (Re: Findings on the Judicial Audit Conducted in Regional Trial
Court, Branch 8, La Trinidad, Benguet, A.M. No. 14-10-339-RTC, Mar. 07, 2017)
—      Undue delay in the disposition of cases and motions erodes the faith and
confidence of the people in the judiciary and unnecessarily blemishes its stature.
(Marcelo-Mendoza vs. Peroxide Phils., Inc., G.R. No. 203492, April 24, 2017)
— The act of a judge of demanding for complainant’s firearms and in an aggressive
manner effectively harassed the already nervous police officer; regardless of the reason
or motive behind the altercation, a judge should observe judicial temperament which
requires him to be always temperate, patient, and courteous, both in conduct and in
language; penalty. (PO1 Marcelo vs. Judge Barcillano, A.M. No. RTJ-16-2450, June 07,
2017)
Delay in rendering a decision — A judge is expected to keep his own listing of cases
and to note therein the status of each case so that they may be acted upon accordingly
and without delay; he must adopt a system of record management and organize his
docket in order to monitor the flow of cases for a prompt and effective dispatch of
business. (Gamboa-Roces vs. Judge Perez, A.M. No. MTJ-16-1887, Jan. 09, 2017)
—      Every judge should decide cases with dispatch and should be careful, punctual,
and observant in the performance of his functions for delay in the disposition of cases
erodes the faith and confidence of our people in the judiciary, lowers its standards and
brings it into disrepute; failure to decide a case within the reglementary period is not
excusable and constitutes gross inefficiency warranting the imposition of administrative
sanctions on the defaulting judge. (Re: Findings on the Judicial Audit Conducted in
Regional Trial Court, Branch 8, La Trinidad, Benguet, A.M. No. 14-10-339-RTC, Mar. 7,
2017)
—      Judges and clerks of court should personally conduct a physical inventory of the
pending cases in their courts and personally examine the records of each case at the
time of their assumption to office and every semester thereafter; judges should know
which cases are submitted for decision and are expected to keep their own record of
cases so that they may act on them promptly. (Office of the Court
Administrator vs. Retired Judge Chavez, A.M. No. RTJ-10-2219, Mar. 07, 2017)
—      Lower courts have three months within which to decide cases or resolve matters
submitted to them for resolution; guidelines in SC Administrative Circular No. 13
provides, inter alia, that judges shall observe scrupulously the periods prescribed by Art.
VIII, Sec. 15, of the Constitution for the adjudication and resolution of all cases or
matters submitted in their courts; all cases or matters must be decided or resolved
within twelve months from date of submission by all lower collegiate courts, while all
other lower courts are given a period of three months to do so. (Office of the Court
Administrator vs. Retired Judge Chavez, A.M. No. RTJ-10-2219, Mar. 07, 2017)
Duties — Judges are expected to closely follow the development of cases and in this
respect to keep their own record of cases so that they may act on them promptly.
(Rapsing vs. Judge Walse-Lutero, A.M. No. MTJ-17-1894, April 04, 2017)
—      While domestic concerns deserve some consideration from the Supreme Court,
such circumstances could only mitigate the liability of the respondent judge.
(Rapsing vs. Judge Walse-Lutero, A.M. No. MTJ-17-1894, April 04, 2017)
Gross ignorance of the law — Gross ignorance transcends a simple error in the
application of legal provisions; in the absence of fraud, dishonesty or corruption, the
acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are generally not subject to disciplinary action,
even though such acts are erroneous; to be liable for gross ignorance of the law, the
assailed orders of a judge, who acts in his official capacity, should not only be
erroneous; it must be established that his actuation was attended by bad faith,
dishonesty, hatred or other similar motive. (Biado vs. Hon. Brawner-Cualing, A.M. No.
MTJ-17-1891, Feb. 15, 2017)
—      Not every error or mistake committed by a judge in the exercise of his adjudicative
functions renders him liable, unless his act was tainted with bad faith or a deliberate
intent to do an injustice; to hold a judge administratively liable for gross ignorance of the
law, the assailed decision, order or act of the judge in the performance of his official
duties must not only be contrary to existing law or jurisprudence, but must also be
motivated by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty, or corruption on his part.           (Ortega,
Jr. vs. Judge Dacara, A.M. No. RTJ-15-2423, Jan. 11, 2017)
—     Respondent judge manifested gross ignorance of the law as to the propriety or
impropriety of issuing a writ of preliminary injunction despite absence of basis in fact
and in law. (Dr. Sunico vs. Judge Gutierrez, A.M. No. RTJ-16-2457, Feb. 21, 2017)
—     Though not every judicial error bespeaks ignorance of the law or of the rules and
that when committed in good faith does not warrant administrative sanction, the rule
applies only in cases within the parameters of tolerable misjudgment; when the law or
the rule is so elementary, not to be aware of it or to act as if one does not know it
constitutes gross ignorance of the law. (Dr. Sunico vs. Judge Gutierrez, A.M. No. RTJ-
16-2457, Feb. 21, 2017)
Gross inefficiency — An inexcusable failure to decide a case or motion constitutes
gross inefficiency, warranting the imposition of administrative sanctions such as
suspension from office without pay or fine on the defaulting judge. (Dr. Sunico vs. Judge
Gutierrez, A.M. No. RTJ-16-2457, Feb. 21, 2017)
—      Failure to decide cases and other matters within the reglementary period
constitutes gross inefficiency and warrants the imposition of administrative sanction
against the erring magistrate. (Re: Findings on the Judicial Audit Conducted in Regional
Trial Court, Branch 8, La Trinidad, Benguet, A.M. No. 14-10-339-RTC, Mar. 07, 2017)
—      Failure to decide cases that were the subject of requests for extension of time to
dispose constitutes gross inefficiency; fine of ₱100,000.00, imposed. (Office of the
Court Administrator vs. Judge Aventurado, A.M. No. RTJ-09-2212, April 18, 2017)
—      On delay in rendering judgment, Sec. 15(1) and (2), Art. VIII of the Constitution
provides that all cases and matters must be decided or resolved by the lower courts
within three months from the date of submission of the last pleading; Sec. 5, Canon 6 of
the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary  mandates judges to
“perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly
and with reasonable promptness”; also, Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial
Conduct exhorts judges to dispose of the court’s business promptly and to decide cases
within the required periods. (Office of the Court Administrator vs. Retired Judge Chavez,
A.M. No. RTJ-10-2219, Mar. 07, 2017)
Gross misconduct — Violation of Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, a case of;
penalty. (Re: Anonymous Letter Complaint vs. Judge Divina T. Samson, Municipal
Circuit Trial Court, Mabini-Pantukan, Compostela Valley, A.M. No. MTJ-16-1870, June
06, 2017)
Gross neglect of duty — Gross neglect of duty is a grave offense punishable by
dismissal; the penalty of dismissal carries with it cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of
retirement benefits, perpetual disqualification from holding public office and bar from
taking civil service examinations. (Office of the Court Administrator vs. Retired Judge
Chavez, A.M. No. RTJ-10-2219, Mar. 07, 2017)
—      Gross neglect of duty refers to negligence that is characterized by a glaring want
of care; by acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not
inadvertently, but willfully and intentionally; or by acting with a conscious indifference to
consequences with respect to other persons who may be affected; it is the omission of
that care that even inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to take on their own
property; in cases involving public officials, there is gross negligence when a breach of
duty is flagrant and palpable. (Office of the Court Administrator vs. Retired Judge
Chavez, A.M. No. RTJ-10-2219, Mar. 07, 2017)
Gross violation of Administrative Circular No. 43-2004 —When committed; fine of
₱100,000.00, imposed; the Administrative Circular required, among others, that the
judge applying for optional retirement should already cease working and discharging his
functions as judge even if on the date specified in the application as the date of the
effectivity of the optional retirement, he has not yet received any notice of approval or
denial of his application. (Office of the Court Administrator vs. Judge Aventurado, A.M.
No. RTJ-09-2212, April 18, 2017)
Incompetence –– When the inefficiency springs from failure to consider so basic and
elemental a rule, law or principle in the discharge of duties, the judge is either
insufferably incompetent and undeserving of the position she holds or is too vicious that
the oversight or omission was deliberately done in bad faith and in grave abuse of
judicial authority. (Judge Marcos vs. Hon. Cabrera-Faller, A.M. No. RTJ-16-2472, Jan.
24, 2017)
Judicial clemency — Judicial clemency is an act of mercy removing any
disqualification from the erring judge; it can be granted only if there is a showing that it
is merited; thus, proof of reformation and a showing of potential and promise are
indispensable;judicial clemency is not a privilege or a right that can be availed of at any
time, as the Court will grant it only if there is a showing that it is merited; clemency, as
an act of mercy removing any disqualification, should be balanced with the preservation
of public confidence in the courts. (Concerned Lawyers of Bulacan vs. Presiding Judge
Villalon-Pornillos, A.M. No. RTJ-09-2183, Feb. 14, 2017)
—      Requirements to grant judicial clemency: 1. There must be proof of remorse and
reformation; these shall include but should not be limited to certifications or testimonials
of the officer(s) or chapter(s) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, judges or judges
associations and prominent members of the community with proven integrity and
probity; a subsequent finding of guilt in an administrative case for the same or similar
misconduct will give rise to a strong presumption of non-reformation; 2. sufficient time
must have lapsed from the  imposition of the penalty to ensure a period of reformation;
3. the age of the person asking for clemency must show that he still has productive
years ahead of him that can be put to good use by giving him a chance to redeem
himself; 4. there must be a showing of promise such as intellectual aptitude, learning or
legal acumen or contribution to legal scholarship and the development of the legal
system or administrative and other relevant skills, as well as potential for public service;
and 5. there must be other relevant factors and circumstances that may justify
clemency. (Concerned Lawyers of Bulacan vs. Presiding Judge Villalon-Pornillos, A.M.
No. RTJ-09-2183, Feb. 14, 2017)
Liability of –– Although judges are generally not accountable for erroneous judgments
rendered in good faith, such defense in situations of infallible discretion adheres only
within the parameters of tolerable judgment and does not apply where the basic issues
are so simple and the applicable legal principle evident and basic as to be beyond
permissible margins of error. (Judge Marcos vs. Hon. Cabrera-Faller, A.M. No. RTJ-16-
2472, Jan. 24, 2017)
 —      Cessation from office by reason of resignation, death or retirement is not a
ground to dismiss the case filed against her at the time that she was still in the public
service. (Re: Findings on the Judicial Audit Conducted in Regional Trial Court, Branch
8, La Trinidad, Benguet, A.M. No. 14-10-339-RTC, Mar. 07, 2017)
—      Judges cannot be excused by the acts of their subordinates because court
employees are not the guardians of a judge’s responsibility; judges should not merely
rely on their court staff for the proper management of the court’s business; being in legal
contemplation the head of his branch, he was the master of his own domain who should
be ready and willing to take the responsibility for the mistakes of his subjects, as well as
to be ultimately responsible for order and efficiency in his court. (Office of the Court
Administrator vs. Retired Judge Chavez, A.M. No. RTJ-10-2219, Mar. 07, 2017)
—      Making a drawing of a vagina and a penis and thereafter showing it to an
employee of the court of which he is an officer constitutes sexual harassment; it is an
act that constitutes a physical behavior of a sexual nature; a gesture with lewd
insinuation. (Judge Arabani, Jr. vs. Arabani, A.M. No. SCC-10-14-P, Feb. 21, 2017)
––     When the law is sufficiently basic, a judge owes it to his office to simply apply it;
anything less than that would be constitutive of gross ignorance of the law. (Judge
Marcos vs. Hon. Cabrera-Faller, A.M. No. RTJ-16-2472, Jan. 24, 2017)
New Code of Judicial Conduct — Enjoins the judges to devote their professional
activity to judicial duties and to perform them, including the delivery of reserved
decisions, efficiently, fairly, and with reasonable promptness. (Gamboa-
Roces vs. Judge Perez, A.M. No. MTJ-16-1887, Jan. 09, 2017)
—      Judges are charged with exercising extra care in ensuring that the records of the
cases and official documents in their custody are intact; they must adopt a system of
record management and organize their dockets to bolster the prompt and efficient
dispatch of business. (Office of the Court Administrator vs. Retired Judge Chavez, A.M.
No. RTJ-10-2219, Mar. 07, 2017)
—      Sec. 3, Canon 2 of the New Code of JudicialConduct provides: Sec. 3. Judges
should take or initiate appropriate disciplinary measures against lawyers or court
personnel for unprofessional conduct of which the judge may have become aware; the
judge should have caused the investigation of the unprofessional conduct committed by
the court personnel under his supervision.  (Anonymous vs. Namol, A.M. No. P-16-
3614, June 20, 2017)

JUSTICES3
Inhibition of –– Mere imputation of bias or partiality is not enough ground for inhibition,
especially when the charge is without basis; respondent’s motion to require the
inhibition of the Justices, who all concurred to the main Decision, would open the
floodgates to the worst kind of forum shopping, and on its face, would allow respondent
to shop for a Member of the Court who she perceives to be more compassionate and
friendly to her cause, and is clearly antithetical to the fair administration of justice. (Rep.
of the Phils. vs. Sereno, G.R. No. 237428, June 19, 2018)

JUDGES AND JUSTICES4

Administrative proceedings against — There are three ways by which administrative
proceedings against judges and justices of the CA and Sandiganbayan may be
instituted: (1) motu proprio by the Supreme Court; (2) upon verified complaint with
affidavits of persons having personal knowledge of the facts alleged therein or by
documents which may substantiate said allegations; or (3) upon an anonymous
complaint supported by public records of indubitable integrity. (Re: Letter of Dimaano
Requesting Investigation of the Alleged Illegal Activities Perpetrated by Associate
Justice Lantion of the CA, Cagayan De Oro City, and Atty. Cajayon of Zamboanga City,
A.M. No. 17-03-03-CA, July 11, 2017)

JUDGES AND JUSTICES5

Administrative complaints –– Administrative complaints against judges of regular
courts and special courts as well as justices of the CA and the Sandiganbayan may be
instituted: (1) by the Supreme Court motu proprio;(2) upon a verified complaint,
supported by affidavits of persons who have personal knowledge of the facts alleged
therein or by documents which may substantiate said allegations; or (3) upon an
anonymous complaint, supported by public records of indubitable integrity. (Re:
Anonymous Letter-Complaint (with Attached Pictures) Against Associate Justice
Normandie B. Pizarro, Court of Appeals, A.M. No. 17-11-06-CA, March 13, 2018)
––      Circular No. 4 issued by the Court on 27 August 1980 provides that the attention
of the Court has been invited to the presence of some judges in gambling casinos
operating under P.D. No. 1067-B; it reads as follows: (3-b) persons not allowed to play
(a) government officials connected directly with the operation of the government or any
of its agencies; in accordance with law and pursuant to the Resolution of the Court  en
banc in A.M. No. 1544-0, dated August 21, 1980, judges of inferior courts and the court
3
Supreme Court of the Philippines Case Index 2018
4
Supreme Court of the Philippines Case Index 2017
5
Supreme Court of the Philippines Case Index 2018
personnel are enjoined from playing in or being present in gambling casinos. (Re:
Anonymous Letter-Complaint (with Attached Pictures) Against Associate Justice
Normandie B. Pizarro, Court of Appeals, A.M. No. 17-11-06-CA, March 13, 2018)
––      The rationale for the requirement that complaints against judges and justices of
the judiciary must be accompanied by supporting evidence is to protect magistrates
from the filing of flimsy and virtually unsubstantiated charges against them; this is
consistent with the rule that in administrative proceedings, the complainants bear the
burden of proving the allegations in their complaints by substantial evidence; if they fail
to show in a satisfactory manner the facts upon which their claims are based, the
respondents are not obliged to prove their exception or defense. (Re: Anonymous
Letter-Complaint (with Attached Pictures) Against Associate Justice Normandie B.
Pizarro, Court of Appeals, A.M. No. 17-11-06-CA, March 13, 2018) ––     The term
“government official connected directly to the operation of the government or any of its
agencies” refers to any person employed by the government whose tasks is the
performance and exercise of any of the functions and powers of such government or
any agency thereof, as conferred on them by law, without any intervening agency; a
government official connected directly to the operation of the government or any of its
agencies is a government officer who performs the functions of the government on his
own judgment or discretion essentially, a government officer under Sec. 2(14) of E.O.
No. 292. (Re: Anonymous Letter-Complaint (with Attached Pictures) Against Associate
Justice Normandie B. Pizarro, Court of Appeals, A.M. No. 17-11-06-CA, March 13,
2018)
Q : Can the Supreme Court reinstable a judge to his former position?
Ans : It depends. Where a judge has been dismissed for conviction of a crime which
carries with it permanent disqualification from holding government office, the Supreme
Court may not reinstate the dismissed judge to the service without negating the final
conviction with regard to his qualification.
On the other hand, a judge who has been previously dismissed from the service
for manifestly erroneously decision in a criminal case through gross incompetence and
gross ignorance of the law may be reinstated where there is no clear indication that he
was inspired by corrupt motives or a reprehensible purpose (In re Petition for dismissal
of Judge Dizon, A.M. 3086, May 3, 1986)

Factors to be considered in reinstating a judge

1. Unsullied name and service of record prior to dismissal.
2. Commitment to avoid situation that spur suspicion of arbitrary condtions.
3. Complainant mellowed down in pushing from his removal.
4. Length of time separated from service.

A judge is criminally liable for causing an undue injury to a person or giving any private
party an unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference in discharge of his official
function through manifest partially, evident bad faith and gross inexcusable negligence.
(Sec 3 (e), RA 3019)

Disqualification of Justices and Judges

1. Compulsory Disqualification
 No Judge or judicial officer shall sit in any case in which :
1. He, or his wife or child, is pecuniarily interested as heir, legatee, creditor or
otherwise;
2. In which he is related to either party within the sixth degree of consanguinity
or affinity;
3. He is to counsel within the fourth degree, computed according to the rules of
the civil law;
4. In which he has been executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or counsel;
5. 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 record (Sec. 1, Rule 137 RRC)

2. Voluntary Disqualification
May be acted upon exercise of the judge’s sound discretion, disqualifying himself
from sitting in a case, for just or valid reasons.

Objection that judge is disqualified

The party objecting the official competency may, in writing, file with the official
his objection, stating the grounds therefor, and the official shall thereupon proceed with
trial, or withdraw therefrom, in accordance with the determination of the question of his
disqualification. His decision shall be forthwith made in writing and filed with the other
papers in the case, but no appeal or stay shall be allowed from, or by reason of, his
decision in favor of his own competency, until after final judgment in the case. (Sec. 2,
Rule 137 RRC)