Judicial Ethics

By Joselito C. Manuel
SSC-R Graduate School of Law

―Judicial ethics as a system of professional values and as an institutional instrument of

judiciary is an integral part of court administration which is based on the principle of
self-regulation.‖

Mindaugas Šimonis
The Role of Judicial Ethics
in court administration:
from Setting the Objectives
to Practical Implementation
I. Introduction
Judicial ethics if part of Legal Ethics that govern the conduct of judges
in the practice of their tasks in the judiciary. Legal Ethics, being larger in
scope, looks into the moral aptitude of a lawyer in general, while judicial
ethics focuses on the actions of those in the Judiciary in particular. Both
Legal Ethics and Judicial Ethics is applicable to judges, because, after all, in
our jurisdiction, Judges of the Municipal Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
Courts in the Cities, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, Metropolitan Trial
Courts, Justices of the Sandigan Bayan, Court of Appeals, Court of Tax
Appeals, and the Surpreme Court has to be a lawyer first. According to
Legal Information Institute1,
“Judicial ethics is part of the larger legal category of legal ethics. Judicial ethics
consists of the standards and norms that bear on judges and covers such matters as
how to maintain independence, impartiality, and avoid impropriety2.”
Does this make the jobs of those in the judiciary harder?
Probably yes.
But, as vanguards of justice, it is just rightly so. Citizens-at-large look up
to the judiciary to dish out rightful justice to afford our constitutionally
protected rights the status it so rightly deserves. They expect wrong doers,
those who trample upon these rights, to be punished and given their just
desserts. And to whom do they look at to dispense this ‗justice‘?
The lawyers and judges.
The Juan Dela Cruzes of the Philippines expect the judges as monitors
of these rights and expects them to ‗decide‘ without bias when these rights

1
https://www.law.cornell.edu/
2
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/judicial_ethics
 are infringed. As the cliché goes, ‗they want justice to be done‘. As Carla
Dean (Actress Regina King) in the movie Enemy of the State3 asked,
“Well, who‟s gonna monitor the monitors of the monitor?”
Good question.
This is where Legal Ethics and Judicial Ethics come in. Legal and
Judicial ethics are implemented by both Intergrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP) and the Supreme Court (through the Office of the Court
Administrator or OCA). The role of the OCA is to dish our disciplinary
actions for any infractions against the required moral uprightness of Judges.
―The Office of the Court Administrator (In Tagalog: Tanggapan ng
Tagapangasiwa ng Hukuman) is a department of the Supreme Court of the
Philippines tasked primarily with investigating judicial misconduct in the
lower courts through audits and filing administrative cases against judges
who they find guilty of corrupt practices, gross negligence,
and/or ignorance of the law, which are then heard and ruled on by the
Supreme Court en banc. Cases brought by the Court Administrator can lead
to sanctions starting at warnings and fines all the way up
to disbarment from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, forfeiture of
benefits, and banning from serving in any public office or government-
owned corporation. The office was established in 1975 by then-
President Ferdinand Marcos. On March 1, 2022, Raul B. Villanueva was
appointed as the Court Administrator who is tasked to oversee more than
2,600 judges and 25,000 court personnel.‖4

II. Legal Ethics as the Big Picture

Legal Ethics

Dissecting the etymology of the word, Ethics is the moral principle that
govern a person's behavior or the conducting of an activity. Thus, the
activity being the exercise of the legal profession, Legal Ethics, therefore is
the principles of conduct that members of the legal profession are expected
to observe in their practice. They are an outgrowth of the development of
the legal profession itself.

―The legal profession known as the noble and ancient profession has
ethical tenets that require its votaries, the so called suitors of the law, to
adhere and observe continuing fidelity to the ethical tenets of the
profession. In fact in the Utopian sense, the success of a lawyer is and
should always be measured by the way the votary of the law adheres to the
ethical standards of the profession. If the law profession has to remain an
honorable calling it is imperative that ―those enrolled in its rank should not
master its tenets and principles but should also, by their lives, accord

3
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120660/characters/nm0005093
4
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_the_Court_Administrator
 continuing fidelity to them.‖ (Agpalo, Legal and Judicial Ethics, 2002
Ed.,p.1, citing Docena vs. Limon, 98 SCAD 232; 295 SCRA 262)‖5

Ethics vs Morality

Ethics and morals relate to ―right‖ and ―wrong‖ conduct. While they are
sometimes used interchangeably, they are different: ethics refer to rules
provided by an external source, e.g., codes of conduct in workplaces
or principles in religions. Morals refer to an individual's own
principles regarding right and wrong

III. Historical and Religious Background; Qualities of a Judge according

to the old philosophers and sages.
‗Lady Justice‘ is often depicted as woman with a blindfold and holding
up a balanced scale. It is one of the most recognizable figures or icon in
these modern times.
In a paper entitled ―What Makes a Good Judge6‖ submitted to the
European Judicial Training Network (EJTN) by trainee judges from Team
Hungary, they said that
“The idea of a good judge originates from the ancient goddesses of justice,who were
personification of the moral force in judicial systems. The Egyptian goddess Maat, the
Greek goddess Themis or the Roman goddess Justitia (Lady Justice) symbolized
perfect justice, which was expected to be pursued by human judges aswell.
These goddesses embodied divine order, truth,and the rightness of law. Their
female character was due to the highrank of women in ancient Egyptian society, which
influenced the more restrictive Greek and Roman conventions.
Maat held in their hands symbols of power and eternal life. Themis and Justitia
were showed with sword and a set of scales as symbols of authority and weighing truth.
Depictions of Lady Justice wearing a blindfold are modern, not classical. The concept
of blind Justice appeared in the 16th century and it represented impartiality, the ideal
that justice should be applied without regard to wealth, power or other status. In some
modern depictions blindfold is shifted to show that judges must be alert and aware.”7

So how was judgment rendered in the olden times? How was justice
dispensed in the days of yore so to speak? How are ‗judges‘ chosen?
Tribal traditions often refer to the oldest person in the group to decide
matters of conflict. It is but logical since the oldest in the tribe carries with
him a long memory of their customs and traditions. Tribal traditions where
wise old men pronounced judgments based on customs and the supposed
will of gods.

5
Legal and Judicial Ethics, its Relevance Revisited by ALEJANDRO M. GOZON
https://arellanolaw.edu/alpr/v10n1a.pdf
6
https://www.ejtn.eu/Documents/Team%20HU%20semi%20final%20D.pdf
7
ibid
 Perusal of the one of the oldest book in print, the Bible, gives us a
famous Judge whom we all recognize and remember: King Solomon. The
Judgement of Solomon is a story from the Hebrew Bible in which Solomon
ruled between two women both claiming to be the mother of a child.
Solomon revealed their true feelings and relationship to the child by
suggesting the baby be cut in two, each woman to receive half.8
So how indeed?
Charisma as the „criteria‟
in the Book of Judges.
There are 15 famous judges in the Old Testament.
―The Hebrew term shofet, which is translated into English as ―judge,‖ is
closer in meaning to ―ruler,‖ a kind of military leader or deliverer from potential or
actual defeat. The office of judgeship is not hereditary…judges are ‗chosen‘ by
Yahweh. The quality that enabled a person selected by Yahweh to be a judge was
charisma, a spiritual power that enabled the judge to influence, lead, and control
the people caught between the allurements of the sophisticated Canaanite culture
and the memory of the nomadic way of life with its rugged freedom and disdain
for ―civilization.‖9

Classical Greece10
In Athenian law in the fifth and fourth centuries, disputes were adjudicated
by officials called archons. The archons may have heard testimony from parties
and witnesses, may have questioned them, and perhaps the parties were allowed to
question each other. However, by the fifth century BCE., Athens had written
statues and a formal court system.
The complaint was then brought before a magistrate, who was a citizen
chosen by lot, who then held a preliminary hearing [anakrisis].
Following the preliminary hearing, the magistrate generally sent a private
case not involving homicide to an arbitrator, and a public case directly to the
popular court.
Arbitrators were citizens over the age of sixty, also chosen by lot.
The magistrate conducting the trial had no role other than to preside. He
did not make evidentiary rulings, permit objections, or offer instruction to the jury.
Citizens above the age of thirty without a criminal record were eligible to
serve as dikastai. Scholars disagree as to whether the dikastai should be called jurors
or judges, since their function was essentially both roles.

8
Holy Bible, 1 Kings 3:16-28
9
https://www.britannica.com/topic/biblical-literature/Judges-importance-and-role
10
https://kosmossociety.chs.harvard.edu/law-and-courts-in-ancient-athens-a-brief-overview/
 Each party was expected to argue his own case before the court. When
witness testimony or statutes were read to the jurors, the water clock was stopped,
to be restarted when the speaker continued his speech.
Often, litigants hired speech writers (logographai), who provided speeches for
the parties to deliver. Some of the most famous of these logographai were Antiphon,
Lysias, and Demosthenes. The surviving speeches of such men constitute a major
source for our knowledge of Athenian law.
Jurors‘ ballots were two discs with rods through the centers—a solid rod for
the defendant, and a hollow rod for the plaintiff. The jurors dropped ballots to be
counted in one container and ballots not to be counted in another container,
covering the rods so their votes remained unknown to others. Then the votes were
counted and the verdict announced.

Ancient Rome11
In contrast, the Roman court is not a place but rather a magistrate, as is true
technically in modern western culture as well.
The consuls served as the chief legal magistrates along with their other
duties. Due to overload of cases, this led to the creation of the praetorship (praetor
urbanus) in 367 BCE. A second praetor (praetor peregrinus) was introduced
in 242 BCE, and these two magistrates oversaw the legal system.
In civil law cases, a hearing (in iure) took place before one of these magistrates
to establish the nature of the dispute between the complainants, who had to be
present. At the end of this hearing, the magistrate appointed a judge (iudex)
who would then set a date and time for the trial (apud iudicem) itself.
Two annual consuls were the chief magistrates of the Roman state during the Republican
period. Consuls were elected in the centuriate assembly and were granted imperium, which implied
supreme civil and military power. Until the 1st century BCE, consuls were the chief
commanders of the Roman army under the authority of the senate: as such,
they were the leading actors in the imperial expansion of Rome. Consuls also carried out
important civil functions when they were present in Rome. During the 1st
century BCE the role played by consuls changed due to the fact that they remained at Rome for
most or all of their term of office. Consuls no longer played the important military
role they had in previous centuries, while their political role substantially
increased: they were expected to be the most visible political leaders at the
centre-stage of Roman politics.
The two consuls were elected each year in the centuriate assembly
(comitia centuriata), in a meeting normally summoned and presided over by one of
the current consuls or, exceptionally, by a dictator, interrex or, in the Early
Republic, a military tribune with consular power.

11
https://oxfordre.com/classics/oso/viewentry/10.1093$002facrefore$002f9780199381135.001.0001$002facrefore-9780199381135-e-
8071;jsessionid=4879DE0E71E4029073D1AC0372E3787C
 Ancient Shari‟a (Islamic)12
Of course, being one of the oldest civilizations in the world, the Moslem or
Islamoc justice needs looking at too. The term qāḍī was in use from the time
of Muhammad during the early history of Islam, and remained the term used for
judges throughout Islamic history and the period of the caliphates. While
the muftī and fuqaha played the role in elucidation of the principles of Islamic
jurisprudence (Uṣūl al-Fiqh) and the Islamic law (sharīʿa), the qāḍī remained the key
person ensuring the establishment of justice on the basis of these very laws and
rules. Thus, the qāḍī was chosen from amongst those who had mastered the
sciences of jurisprudence and law.
The classic Sharia was not a code of laws, but a body of religious and legal
scholarship that continued to develop for the next 1,000 years.
In a trial in front of a qadi, it is the plaintiff who is responsible for bringing
evidence against the defendant in order to have him or her convicted. There are no
appeals to the judgements of a qadi. A qadi must exercise his office in a public
place, the chief mosque is recommended, or, in their own house, where the public
should have free access. The qadi had authority over a territory whose diameter
was equivalent to a day's walk. The opening of a trial theoretically required the
presence of both the plaintiff and the defendant.

English and Welsh Magistracy:

An Ancient System13
Being considered the ‗1st modern‘ justice system, looking at where ‗most‘ justice
system is patterned in the world today is a must in this paper. Justice in Anglo-
Saxon times (and even after the Norman invasion of 1066) was a combination of
local and royal government. Local courts were presided over by a lord or one of
his stewards, whereas the King‘s court – the Curia Regis – was (initially at least)
presided over by the King himself.
During this period, judges gradually gained independence from the monarch
and the government. The very first judges, back in the 12th century, were court
officials who had particular experience in advising the King on the settlement of
disputes. From that group evolved the ‗justices in Eyre‘, who possessed mixed
administrative and judicial powers. The justices in Eyre were not popular, and in
fact came to be regarded as instruments as oppression.
The seeds of the modern justice system were sown by Henry II (1154-1189), who
established a jury of 12 local knights to settle disputes over the ownership of
land. When Henry came to the throne, there were just 18 judges in the
country – compared to more than 40,000 today.

12
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qadi
13
https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/history-of-the-judiciary-in-england-and-wales/history-of-the-judiciary/
 In 1166, Henry issued a Declaration at the Assize of Clarendon (an assize was an early
form of the King‟s Bench). The Assize of Clarendon ordered the remaining non-King‟s Bench
judges to travel the country – which was divided into different areas known as circuits – deciding
cases.
To decide cases, they would use the laws made by the judges in Westminster, a change that
meant many local customs were replaced by new national laws. These national laws
applied to everyone and so were common to all. Even today, we know them
as the ‘common law’.
The system of judges sitting in London while others travelled round the country became known
as the „assizes system‟. Incredibly, it survived until 1971. The circuits remain in place today.
Originally, each of the three high common law courts, the King's Bench, the Court of Common
Pleas, and the Court of the Exchequer, had its own chief justice: the Lord Chief Justice, Chief
Justice of the Common Pleas, and Chief Baron of the Exchequer. The Court of the King's (or
Queen's) Bench had existed since 1234. In 1268 its foremost judge was given the title of (lord)
chief justice; previously one of the justices would be considered the senior judge, and fulfil an
analogous role.
The three courts became divisions of the High Court in 1875 (though the head of each court
continued in post). Following the deaths of Lord Chief Justice Sir Alexander Cockburn and
Chief Baron Sir Fitzroy Kelly in 1880, the three divisions were merged into a single division,
with Lord Coleridge, the last Chief Justice of Common Pleas, as Lord Chief Justice of England.
The suffix "and Wales", now found in statutes and elsewhere, was of a holder's own motion
and to reflect centuries-old reality, appended during the tenure of Lord Bingham of Cornhill. He
held this office between 1996 and 2000.
The Lord Chief Justice, as of writing, The Right Honourable The Lord Burnett of
Maldon, is the Head of the Judiciary of England and Wales and the President of the Courts of
England and Wales.14

Qualities of a Judge (Book of Kings in the Bible)

A Biblical judge was a ruler, military leader, and someone who presided
over legal hearings15.
The time period of the judges followed the conquest of Canaan by Joshua until
the formation of the first Kingdom of Israel (ca. 1150-1025 BC). During this time,
the Israelite Tribes formed a loose confederation. No central government existed
in this confederation. So, in times of crisis or war, the people were led by ad hoc
chieftains known as judges.

14
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Chief_Justice_of_England_and_Wales
15
https://www.swindlelaw.com/2014/08/warrior-judges-of-the-bible
 Qualities of an Archon (Judge, Greek Philo)16
Suffice to say that as the ‗profession‘ or ‗vocation‘ of judgeship moves from
operative leadership in the military to a more recognizable convention of
ministerial, a Greek Archon is someone absent from vices, exercise the virtues of
‗corrective justice‘ to equalise unjust gain or loss, has ‗practical wisdom‘ of a good
and mature person, ‗selfless genuine concern‘ for the good of the others and one
who ―listen courteously, answer wisely, consider soberly and decide impartially.‖

Qualities of a Consul (Roman Judge)17

In contrast to Greek Archons, Roman Consuls who started out as Military
leaders, often taken away from the battlefield due to increasing disputes to preside
over, a Roman Consul is thought to be the most reputable person in the local
community, marked by self-control and rationality, acts fairly, and avoid either
anger or cruel and threatening behaviour and surprisingly, for a military leader, he
should be listening instead of taking part in the ‗struggle‘ (conflict).

Qualities of a Qadi (Islamic or Shari‟a Judge)18

As much as the ancient world is largely patriarchal, a Shari‘a Qadi or Judge
must be a male adult, must be free, of course a Muslim, must be sane, unconvicted
of slander, and educated in Islamic science.

Qualities of a Justice (Modern Era)

� ICJ - nine-year terms of office by the United Nations General Assembly and
the Security Council. Judges must be elected from among persons of high
moral character, who possess the qualifications required in their respective
countries for appointment to the highest judicial offices, or are juris consults of
recognized competence in international law
� ICC - elected to the ICC by the Assembly of States Parties, the court's
governing body. They serve nine-year terms and are not generally eligible for
re-election. They must be "persons of high moral character, impartiality and
integrity who possess the qualifications required in their respective States for
appointment to the highest judicial offices", and they must "have an excellent
knowledge of and be fluent in at least one of the working languages of the
Court" (English and French).
� PCA – technically not a court and nations appoint up to four "of known
competency in questions of international law, of the highest moral reputation
and disposed to accept the duties of arbitrators" for a renewable 6-year term.

16
https://www.ejtn.eu/Documents/Team%20HU%20semi%20final%20D.pdf
17
ibid
18
ibid
Qualities of a Judge (Philippines sources indicated)
1987 Constitution Article VIII, ( also quoted in BP 129 sec 7) on Justices
◦ ―A Member of the Judiciary must be a person of proven competence,
integrity, probity, and independence.”
◦ No person shall be appointed Member of the Supreme Court or any
lower collegiate court unless he is a natural-born citizen of the
Philippines. A Member of the Supreme Court must be at least forty
years of age, and must have been for fifteen years or more, a judge of
a lower court or engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines.
BP 129 on RTC Judges
◦ Section 15. Qualifications. – No persons shall be appointed Regional Trial
Judge unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, at least
thirty-five years of age, and for at least ten years, has been engaged
in the practice of law in the Philippines or has held a public office
in the Philippines requiring admission to the practice of law as an
indispensable requisite
BP 129 on MTC Judges
◦ Section 26. Qualifications. – No person shall be appointed judge of a
Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court, or Municipal Circuit
Trial Court unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, at
least 30 years of age, and, for at least five years, has been engaged
in the practice of law in the Philippines, or has held a public office
in the Philippines requiring admission to the practice of law as an
indispensable requisite.

IV. Sources of Judicial Ethics

� Constitution
� Statutes
� Treaties e.g. Bangalore Draft
� Judicial Decisions

A. Constitution - Article VIII Section 7 par (3)

―(3) A Member of the Judiciary must be a person of proven competence,
integrity, probity, and independence.‖

B. Statutes
a. The Code of Professional Responsibility (1988)
 To the Society – Canons 1-6
 To the Legal Profession – Canon 7-9
  To the Courts – Canons 10-13
 To the Client – Canons 11-22
b. The Canons of Professional Ethics
c. Canons of Judicial Ethics (1946)
d. Code of Judicial Conduct (1989)
e. The Rules of Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE)
f. Rules 137, 138,138-A,139-A, 139-B, 140 of the Rules of Court
g. Lawyer‘s oath (under Rule 138 and144 form 28) – one of the most
important requirement before a lawyer can practice in the Philippines
is to take their solemn oath of office of being a lawyer. The lawyer‘s
oath, ‗not mere words, empty and hollow‘ as the Supreme Court
succinctly puts it, summarizes the duty of lawyer to the country, to
the courts, to his fellow lawyers, to his clients and more importantly,
to the ideals of justice in its pure sense.

“I, do solemnly swear that I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines, I will support the Constitution and obey the laws as well as the
legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein; I will do no falsehood,
nor consent to the doing of any in court; I will not wittingly or willingly
promote or sue any groundless, false or unlawful suit, or give aid nor consent
to the same; I will delay no man for money or malice, and will conduct myself
as a lawyer according to the best of my knowledge and discretion, with all good
fidelity as well to the courts as to my clients; and I impose upon myself these
voluntary obligations without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So
help me God.“

Note that while the Rules of Court is technically not a statute but has the force
and effect of a statutory law based on the rule making power of the Supreme
Court under Article VIII Section 5 par (5)

C. Treaties: The Bangalore Draft of 2002

The Bangalore Code of Judicial Conduct was drafted in 2001 for the Judicial
Group on Strengthening Judicial Integrity and was presented to the Round Table
Meeting of Chief Justices in November of 2002. Based on the Bangalore Draft, the
following canons were presented as indispensible ethical standards for judges to
serve as guidelines or rule book on how to act as one.
o Canon 1 – Independence
o Canon 2 – Integrity
o Canon 3 – Impartiality
o Canon 4 – Propriety
o Canon 5 – Equality
o Canon 6 – Competence and Diligence
 D. The Ten Commandments (not by Moses but) by Lazaro
According to Manuel M. Lazaro, ―A Judge, being a lawyer in the first place,
is bounded to the promises he swore before God, the Court and the people.
These promises are specifically enumerated in the Ten Commandments of the
Judiciary.‖ 19
1. Thou shalt keep faith in divine providence, the fountain source
of all truth, wisdom and justice;
A prayerful Judge is a reliable Judge. Thus, to effectively dispense
truth, wisdom and justice, the Judge must have faith in the Divine
Providence.

2. Thou shalt uphold and defend the constitution andthe laws of

the land, and respect the duly constituted authorities;
Respect for the rule of law is an indispensable trait of a judge and
respect for authority is an inescapable feature of the rule of
law. Judge is the visible representation of law and justice and it is
incumbent upon him to uphold and defend the fundamental law and
the statutes that he represents.

3. Thou shalt be honest and upright in the conduct of thy public

and private life;
A Judge must not only be honest but also appear to be honest.
His behavior, not only in the bench and in the performance but also
in his everyday life, should be beyond reproach. This is part of the
strong moral fiber that the Judge should have, to be able to resist all
the temptations that may come in the way of deciding cases. A Judge
is of course, human but is expected to rise above human frailties. At
the very least, there must be earnest and sincere effort on his part to
do so.

4. Thou shalt dispense justice with competence and impartiality;

A Judge is a minister of Justice. Judge must do everything for justice,
nothing for himself, nothing for his patron.
Judges should not only be impartial, but should also appear impartial.

5. Thou shalt create an aura of dignity and honor and possessed

of moral courage with humility, punctuality and courtesy;
Judge must be humble but firm, relentless but prudent. His
presence should exude confidence, evoke fear to do wrong and instill
courage to tell the truth. He must perform his duty without fear or
favor.

19
Ten Judicial Commandments of the Judiciary by Manuel Lazaro (130 SCRA 21 {1984})
 Judge must be gifted with a predisposition to do right and neverw
rong, to administer justice and never injustice.
Judge must be punctual, must be courteous.
6. Thou shalt not delay any man’s cause;
“Justice delayed is justice denied” Judge should prompt in disposing
all matters submitted to him.
Judge must judiciously apportion the court‘s time to achieve speedy
dispatch of cases, consistent with justice.

7. Thou shalt not succumb to the blandishments ofpublic

pressure on private greed;
The pressure and influences brought to bear upon a Judge in the
adjudication of cases are great. Thus, tritely perhaps, there is a need
for independent-minded Judges.

8. Thou shalt not abuse the powers of thy office;

Judge dispenses justice for the community. He is the state‘s
instrument to assure that everyone is given his due. The judges peaks
and acts for the State, not for himself. He, therefore, wield the
powers of his office with restraint and with reason.

9. Thou Shalt Not Forget That Mercy Or Compassion Is the

Twin Virtue Of Justice;
A Judge need not to be strict to the point of unreasonableness.
Judge ought to be gentle, compassionate and understandingespecially
to the poor, the distressed, the illiterates, the so-called ―dregs of
society.‖ Judge should make ―equal protection of the law‖ a living
reality of these people who most need it.

10. Thou Shalt Not Remain Static But Move With The Dynamism
Of The Law
Law is a living and pulsating thing; it is inexorably growing. A
Judge should make a conscious effort to study the law
and jurisprudence and keep abreast not only with legal developments
but also with social, political, economic and even cultural
developments.
Judge should never stop to study and to ponder, for law is never
static, it moves and should move with the times.
“Law is a demanding and jealous mistress. If you cannot
keep up with her, she is going to leave you behind, useless and
impotent.”
V. Charges Against Judges of the RTC (Rule 140)
(A.M. NO. 01-8-10-SC [Effective October 01, 2001])

� Section 1. Complaint - All Charges against judges of first instance shall be

in writing and shall set out distinctly, clearly, and concisely the facts
complained of as constituting the alleged serious misconduct or
inefficiency of the respondent, and shall be sworn to and supported by
affidavits of persons who have personal knowledge of the facts therein
alleged, and shall be accompanied with copies of documents which may
substantiate said facts.
� Section 2. Service or dismissal. - If the charges appear to merit action, a
copy thereof shall be served upon the respondent, requiring him to
answer within ten (10) days from the date service. If the charges do not
merit action, or if the answer shows to the satisfaction of the court that
the charges are not meritorious, the same shall be dismissed.
� Section 3. Answer; hearing. - Upon the filing of respondents answer or
upon the expiration of the time for its filing, the court shall assign one of
its members, a Justice of the Court of Appeals or a judge of first instance
to conduct the hearing of the charges. The Justice or judge so assigned
shall set a day for the hearing, and notice thereof shall be served on both
parties. At such hearing the parties may present oral or written evidence.
� Section 4. Report - After the hearing, the Justice or judge shall file with
the Supreme Court a report of his findings of fact and conclusions of
law, accompanied by the evidence presented by the parties and the other
papers in he case.
� Section 5. Action - After the filing of the report, the court will take such
action as the facts and the law may warrant.
� Section 6. Confidential. - Proceedings against judges of first instance shall
be private and confidential.

VI. Office Order No. 21-2001

� Implementing Guidelines in the Evaluation of Administrative

Complaints pursuant to Rule 140 of the Rules of Court
� Assignment of UDK# even anonymous complaints
� If there is basis OCA will assign a docket number, if none, dismissal
� Respondent will be asked to comment – DCA if lower courts, justice to
the OCA
� Exec Judges can be appointed to receive and evaluate

VII. A.M. No. 03-10-01 SC (2003)

a. Resolution Prescribing Measures to Protect Members of the Judiciary
from Baseless and Unfounded Administrative Complaints
b. IF after PI by the OCA the complaint is baseless and only intended to
harass, complainant will be held in contempt
 c. If filed within 6 months of retirement and is baseless, dismissal
d. Without prejudice to the release of benefits in case longer than 6 months

VIII. Rules of Court

a. 137 – Disqualification of Judges
i. Inhibit if pecuniarily interested (by himself)
ii. In writing by parties
b. 138 – Atty admission to the bar
c. 138-A – Law Student Practice Rule
i. SOLA, Certifications
d. 139-A – IBP (successor to PBA)
e. 139-B – Disbarment and Discipline of Atty
i. Thru SC motu propio
ii. IBP upon verified Complaint
f. 140 – Discipline of Judges of Regular and Special Courts and Justices of
Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan
g. 138 and 144 form 28 (Lawyer‘s oath)

IX. Some Cases:

a. A.M. No. RTJ-16-2456 (2020)

Anonymous complaint against Judge Laarni N. Dajao, Presiding
Judge, RTC Br27, Siocon, Zamboanga Del Norte for Use of Vulgar
Words.

SC Ruled:
Moreover, a judge should possess the virtue of gravitas. He should be
learned in the law, dignified in demeanor, refined in speech and virtuous
in character. Besides having the requisite learning in the law, he must
exhibit that hallmark judicial temperament of utmost sobriety and self-
restraint. In this connection, he should be considerate, courteous and
civil to all persons who come to his court. A judge who is inconsiderate,
discourteous or uncivil to lawyers, litigants or witnesses who appear in
his sala commits an impropriety.

b. A.M. No. MTJ-17-1889 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 16-2822-MTJ]

(2019)
 Anonymous complaint against Presiding Judge Analie C. Aldea-
Arocena, MTCC Br1, San Jose City, Nueva Ecija for sitting in a case
involving a family member. Dismissed from Bench.

SC Ruled:
Based on the provision above (Rule 137), a magistrate shall be
mandatorily disqualified to sit in any case in which a judge, his/her
spouse, or child, is pecuniarily interested as heir, legatee, creditor or
otherwise.39 Here, Judge Arocena's husband is a member of the board of
directors of Self-Reliant Cooperative, which has pending civil actions in
her court. As a director, her husband has an interest in the outcome of
the case, which should have been the basis of her inhibition. However,
Judge Arocena failed to do so and violated Section 1, Rule 137 of the
Rules of Court, as amended.

c. A.M. No. MTJ-17-1889 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 16-2822-MTJ]

(2019)
Anonymous complaint against Presiding Judge Analie C. Aldea-
Arocena, MTCC Br1, San Jose City, Nueva Ecija for sitting in a case
involving a family member. Dismissed from Bench.

SC Ruled:
Based on the provision above (Rule 137), a magistrate shall be
mandatorily disqualified to sit in any case in which a judge, his/her
spouse, or child, is pecuniarily interested as heir, legatee, creditor or
otherwise.39 Here, Judge Arocena's husband is a member of the board of
directors of Self-Reliant Cooperative, which has pending civil actions in
her court. As a director, her husband has an interest in the outcome of
the case, which should have been the basis of her inhibition. However,
Judge Arocena failed to do so and violated Section 1, Rule 137 of the
Rules of Court, as amended.

d. A.M. No. RTJ-07-2063/A.M. No. RTJ-07-2064/A.M. No. RTJ-07-

2066 (2022)

The original case was Republic of the Philippines Vs. Judge

Ramon S. Caguioa and he was dismissed from the Bench. He then
asked for Judicial Clemency after 12 years to which, the SC granted.

SC Guidelines on 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.
 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.
5. There must be other relevant factors and circumstances that may
justify clemency.