Ateneo de Davao University – College of Law

JD 110 – Legal Ethics

I – Viada (Subject Instructor: Atty. Danilo A. Balucos, REE)

FINAL EXAMINATION

1.

a. Did the lady judge breach any ethical rule when she asked for a discount on her
hotel bills?

Yes, the lady judge breached the judicial ethics when she identified herself as a
judge to the hotel manager and asked to be given the discount. As a judge, she
should have embodied a proper propriety in handling her personal business. She
could have asked for the discount without using her title as a judge since this is
unbecoming of an official of the court. Canon 4 of the Code of judicial Ethics
states that Propriety and the appearance of propriety are essential to the
performance of all the activities of a judge. As a judge, she holds a higher
standard of integrity which is tied to humility and fairness. In this case, when she
asked for the discount for VIP guests, she had improperly exercised her judicial
capacity outside the court. Her title as a judge should have been strictly used to
administer justice and not on the enjoyment of outside activities. Therefore, the
lady judge breached ethical rules.

b. Was the act of the judge in wearing a two-piece bikini suit in a public place like a
beach resort in the Island Garden City of Samal ethically proper?

No. Since the question here connects with her title as a judge, and under Section 1
of Canon 4 states that Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of
impropriety in all of their activities, this means that even outside the court she
should have maintained an appearance proper and suited on her identity as a
judge. Although it is proper to recognize that a woman should be allowed to wear
whatever she deems to wear, in this case, limit applies to her. Indeed it is true that
she is in the Island Garden City of Samal where wearing such attire is deemed
 acceptable, however, her identity as a judge should have made her more careful
and responsible in handling her demeanor in public. Therefore, she did not act
ethically proper.

2.

a. Did Judge A act ethically with regard to the case of his son?

No, Judge A did not act ethically when he clearly and deliberately infiltrated the
case pending when he instructed the lawyer of his son to file a motion of
suspension of proceedings in the seduction case until the completion of the bar
examinations. As a judge, he should not have infiltrated the business of the
counsel of his son. Section 4, canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Ethics states that
“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 public interests of others, nor convey or permit others to convey the
impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge.” This means
that, as a judge himself, he should have known that his actions were already
improper as judges are expected to have the highest discretion as administrators of
justice.

Accordingly, given the fact that the sala of both judge A and Judge B were parts
of a multi-sala implies or gives us the impression that both know each other. In
instances like this, and to avoid outside pressure as Section 2, canon 1 states that
“In performing judicial duties, judges shall be independent from judicial
colleagues in respect of decisions which the judge is obliged to make
independently.” Judge A should have been careful not to commit unjustness and
exuding pressure on the judge when he sat at the lawyer’s table. Clearly, Judge A
did not act ethically.

b. Was the act of the wife of Judge A in asking the prosecutor not to object to the
motion proper? If it was not, should Judge A nonetheless be called to account for
the act of his wife?
 No, wife of judge A asking for favor is improper. Although it is good to recognize
an act of a motherly love in extending her protectiveness of her son’s state, in this
case, it does not sit properly since this involves infiltration to the administration of
proper justice and fairness. In the case at bar, what should be counted is the
strength and admissibility of evidence to grant one’s motion, on the basis of the
assessment of facts, and not on personal favors. However, even with this, Judge A
should not be held to account for the action of his wife. Although judge A is not
the judge in this case, the Code of Judicial Ethics extends even on outside
activities. Section 4, canon 1 states that “Judges shall not allow family, social or
other relationships to influence judicial conduct” this means that he could have
educated her wife of the common and proper practices in court, but since it was
his wife’s actions, he could have not been made accountable for the latter’s
actions.

3.

a. Did the judge act correctly in citing the lawyer in contempt of court?

Yes, the judge was correct based on Canon 2 of Code of Judicial Ethics which
states that “Integrity is essential not only to the proper discharge of the judicial
office but also to the personal demeanor of judges” in relation with Section 1
of the same canon which states that “Judges shall ensure that not only is their
conduct above reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in the view of a
reasonable observer.” The two preceding rules mean that disciplinary
measures shall be enforced against lawyers who shall commit any
unprofessional conduct. In this case, the judge was aware that the lawyer was
drunk although he acted proper and explained such behavior. As a lawyer, it
should have come in his discretion that doing such thing might not just put
himself in danger of disciplinary measures, but greatly, it may affect the
discharge of his duty as a counsel. The lawyer being drunk and being coupled
with the awareness of the judge to such act, the latter was proper in citing the
former in contempt of court.
 b. Did the judge act correctly in citing the witness in contempt of court?

No, the judge was incorrect. In this case, the judge may have exercised grave
abuse of discretion when he cited the witness in contempt of court. Although
what the witness have stated in explaining why she was late an improper
notion inside of the court, does not necessary preclude that she should be in
contempt. In the first instance, the lawyer was in contempt because he is
expected to be aware and to know the proper decorum inside the court.
Accordingly, what the witness have done is not something grave nor should
result in contempt. In the case of the witness, she is not a court personnel nor a
lawyer, hence she exercises and live a different discretion unlike that of any
court personnel. Moral uprightness is expected to be possessed by the judges
as enunciated in Section 1, canon 2 of the Code of Judicial ethics which states
that “Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above reproach, but that
it is perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable observer.” Following this, it
is not reasonable enough for the judge to hold the witness in contempt of
Court; therefore, citing the witness in contempt of court is improper.

4.

a. Is it proper for a judge to accept an invitation to teach in law school where

the Dean is a practicing lawyer with several cases in his court?

No, it is improper for the judge to accept the invitation. The very priority of a
judge is to render a sound and competent decision without any undue
influence. Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Ethics states that “Impartiality is
essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office. It applies not only to
the decision itself but also to the process by which the decision is made.” This
means that impartiality shall be at all times exercised. So, in cases where there
might be a reason for the judgement of the judge to be clouded, he or she must
be wary of it and avoid it for the proper discharge of his title as a judge. In the
case at bar, the judge must consider that an acceptance of the invitation to
teach in a law school where the dean is a practicing lawyer with many cases in
court does not go consistently with fairness. This is even more emphasized in
 Canon 3, Section 1 of the Code of Judicial Ethics states that “Judges shall
perform their judicial duties without favor, bias, or prejudice.” And Section 2
of the same Code which states that “Judges shall ensure that his or her
conduct, both in and out of court, maintains and enhances the confidence of
the public, the legal profession and litigants in the impartiality of the judge
and of the judiciary.” Having laid all these, it is safe to conclude that
accepting such invitation may constitute an improper delegation of duty as a
judge.

b. Is it ethical for a judge to secure a much-needed loan for the hospitalization of

his only child infected with Covid-19 and in critical condition, from the only
bank in town which however has a pending case before him?

Yes, it is still ethical. In this case, the need and urgency of the said loan for
the hospitalization of his only child does not bar his capability as a judge to
render a sound judgement. The situation here contemplates that for the judge
to secure the said loan, he will also need to do something in return. However,
going in this line of though may preclude that a judge may easily be swayed
by problems in the family. Canon 1, Section 4 of the Code of Judicial Ethics
states that “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 public interests of others, nor convey or
permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to
influence the judge.” The situation in this case contemplates a life and death
situation, knowing the gravity of Covid-19. Hence, as a judge he is not only a
protector of the administration of justice, but the life in general. So, even
though there is a pending case with the bank, this does not presuppose that he
is not able to render a judgement based on proper merit. Therefore, the judge
was ethical.

Rohanie M. Mangudadatu