CODE OF JUDICIAL

CONDUCT AND
JUDICIAL ETHICS
A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC
New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary
 Canons of • DOJ Administrative Order
No. 162
Judicial • August 1, 1964
Ethics
Code of • Promulgated September 5, P

1989
Judicial • Effectivity date October 20,
Promulgate
d –April 27,
2004
Conduct 1989
Published-
May 15,
- superseded by the New Code of 2004
Effectivity –
Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary June 1,
2004
A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC
“ The New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine
Judiciary”

• Canon 1- Independence
• Canon 2- Integrity
• Canon 3- Impartiality
• Canon 4- Propriety
• Canon 5- Equality
• Canon 6- Competence
What is Judicial Ethics?

It is a branch of moral science which treats of the right and

proper conduct to be observed by all judges and
magistrates in trying and deciding controversies brought to
them for adjudication which conduct must be demonstrative
of impartiality, integrity, competence, independence and
freedom from improprieties.

The freedom from improprieties must be observed even in

the judge’s private life.
Sources:
• Constitution (Art VII-Judicial Dept; Art XI Accountability of Public
Officers and Art III Bill of Rights
• Laws (Civil Code Penal Code, Anti-Graft Code, RA 6713)
• Rules of Court
• Canons and Judicial Ethics (A.O. No. 162)
• Code of Judicial Conduct (prom. Sept. 5, 1989)
• New Code of Judicial Conduct of the Philippine Judiciary (prom.
April 27, 2004)
SOURCES:

Anti Graft and Corrupt practices Act RA 3019

Judiciary Act of 1948
Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 (BP 129)
Supreme Court decisions
Foreign decisions
opinion of authorities in Legal and Judicial Ethics
Other statutes
Circulars of the SC
Definition of Terms:

 Court
 Judge
 De jure judge
 De facto judge
 Court staff
 Judge’s family
Qualifications for appointment:

• For Supreme Court and lower collegiate

courts:
• Natural born citizen of the Philippines;
• At least 40 years of age;
• Judge of a lower court or practiced law
for at least 15 years (Sec 7[1], Art. VIII,
Phil. Const.)
Qualifications for appointment:

For RTC judges:

• Natural-born citizen of the Philippines;

• At least 35 years of age;
• Engaged in practice of law or held public
office requiring admission to practice of law
as a requisite for at least 10 years.
(Judiciary Reorg. Act)
Qualifications for appointment:

For MTC Judges:

• Citizen of the Philippines;

• At least 30 years of age;
• Engaged in practice of law or held public
office requiring admission to the bar as a
requisite for at least 5 years. (Judiciary
Reorg. Act)
Qualification for all members of
judiciary:

A member of the judiciary must be a

person of proven competence,
integrity, probity and independence
(Sec. 7[3], Art. VIII, Constitution.
Judicial and Bar Council (Sec.8, Art. VIII, Const.)
• Function—recommending appointees to the Judiciary (at least 3 (now 7) for every
vacancy).

2. Composition:
• Chief Justice as ex-officio Chairman
• Secretary of Justice (ex-officio member)
• Representative(s) of Congress (ex-officio member)
• Representative of the Integrated Bar
• Professor of Law
• Retired Member of the Supreme Court
• Representative of the private practice

(Regular members for a term of 4 years)

Appointments made by the President in the judiciary do not
need any confirmation by the Commission on Appointments
(Sec.9, Art. VIII, Const.)

Any vacancy in the SC must be filled within 90 days from the

occurrence thereof (Sec 4(1) Article VIII 1987 Constitution)

For lower courts the President shall issue the appointments

within 90 days from the submission of the list (Sec 9, thereof)
Requirements in the discharge of responsibilities of
members of the Judiciary:

• No decision shall be rendered by any court without

expressing therein clearly and distinctly, the facts and
the law on which it is based (Sec 14 [, Art VIII)

• Dedicated service to the Judiciary

• Members of the judiciary shall not be designated to any

agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative
functions (Sec 12 Art VIII)
• SALN requirement – Members of the SC shall not only
report all their assets, liabilities and net worth upon
assumption to duty, but they must disclose such to the
PUBLIC in the manner provided by law (Sec 17 Art XI
1987 Constitution)

• Allegiance to the Philippine Government

• For lower courts the President shall issue the appointments

within 90 days from the submission of the list (Sec 9,
thereof)
QUALITIES REQUIRED OF JUDGES:

- Represents the six canons of judicial conduct (New

Code of Conduct of Philippine Judiciary)
• Independence
• Integrity
• Impartiality
• Propriety
• Equality
• Competence and diligence
Pleas for judicial clemency are evaluated on a case-to-case basis:

It entails balancing the purposes of disciplinary proceedings, as well as

acknowledgment of an erring individual’s reformation and potential.

Some considerations in petitions for judicial clemency:

• personal circumstances of the respondent

• the damage caused to private parties as well as the Public’s in the judicial system
• Evidence of remorse, reformation and potential.
• Lapsed of 5 years from the time the person seeking clemency was penalized by the
court.
Diaz guidelines

(a) There must be proof of remorse and reformation

(b) Sufficient time must have lapsed from the imposition of the
penalty to ensure a period of reformation

(c) 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.
Diaz guidelines

(d) 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.

(e) There must be other relevant factors and circumstances that may justify
clemency
Ong case refined the guidelines for Judicial
Clemency:

• a) the lapse of at least five years from the time the person seeking
clemency was penalized by the court

b) a more concrete of remorse and reformation as

evinced not only by an acknowledgment of a wrongful
actions and subsequent showing of sincere repentance
and correction, but also an attempt of reconciliation in
cases where there is a private offended party
Ong case refined the guidelines for Judicial Clemency:

c) preliminary evaluation by the Court to find whether prima facie

circumstances exist to grant the relief.

If in the affirmative- refer to fact- finding commission to determine is

there are substantial evidence supporting the allegations therein

If no prima facie, then dismiss without need of referring the case to fact
finding commission

applied prospectively from the date of promulgation on Jan 19, 2021.

Reminders:
• being a member of the profession more so
those who don judicial robes, is a privilege
burdened with conditions.
• the cumbersome process and fixing of the
ethical standards help ensure that justice is
administered effectively and equitably.
• Preservation of the Public’s trust in the
judicial institution is, indeed, a primary
consideration in both admission and
discipline of members of the profession
and the bench.
Reminders:
• Necessarily, if a lawyer or judge
commits a professional misstep and
had been penalized there on, pleas of
reconsideration or Mitigation must be
supported with compelling proof of
remorse, rehabilitation and potential.
• Judicial clemency is not privilege or a
right that can be availed of at any time.
Courts can only accord it upon
showing that it is merited.
 May the SC
investigate a
member of the
judiciary motu
proprio?
 Yes, the SC may motu proprio conduct
investigation of members of the judiciary and
lawyers pursuant to its administrative supervision
over members of the judiciary (Sec 6 and 11 Article
VIII, 1987 Constitution).

The SC en banc shall have the power to discipline

judges of the lower courts or order their dismissal
by a vote of majority of its members who actually
took part in the deliberations in the case and voted
thereon (Sec. 11 Article VIII; In Re: Allegations
Made under Oath at the Senate Blue Ribbon
Committee Hearing held Sept 26, 2013, against
Associate Justice Gregory S. Ong, SB, A.M. No.
SB 14-21-J, September 23, 2024
May the Chief
Justice or any
justice of the
SC be
disbarred?
Why?
No. Members of the SC must, under Article
VIII (7) (1) of the Constitution, be members
of the Philippine Bar and may be removed
from office only by IMPEACHMENT
(Article XI [2], Constitution).
To grant a complaint for disbarment of a
Member of the Supreme Court during the
Member’s incumbency, would in effect to
circumvent and hence to ran afoul of the
constitutional mandate that members of the
SC maybe removed from the office by
impeachment for and conviction of certain
offenses listed in Article XI (2) of the
Constitution (Cuenco vs. Fernan, A.M. No.
3135
INDEPENDENCE
Canon 1
[AM NO. 03-05-01-SC- 2OO4]

Qualities required of a judge under the New Code of Conduct for

the Philippine Judiciary:
• INDEPENDENCE
• is a pre-requisite to the rule of law and a fundamental guarantee of a fair trial.
• A judge shall therefore uphold and exemplify judicial independence in both its
individual and institutional aspects (Canon 1).

TWO ASPECTS OF INDEPENDENCE:

• Institutional independence
• Personal independence
What is expected of judges?

 To discharge their function based solely on a fair assessment of the facts and
invoking the appropriate provision of law in resolving issues presented before
the court; and shield themselves from any kind of influence from any party
involved.

Section 1—Judges shall exercise their judicial function independently on the

basis of their assessment of the facts and in accordance with a conscientious
understanding of the law, free of any extraneous influence, inducement,
pressure, threat or interference, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any
reason..
Section 2—In performing judicial duties, judges shall be independent
from judicial colleagues in respect of decisions which the judge is
obliged to make independently.
Section 3—Judges shall refrain from influencing in any manner the
outcome of litigation or dispute pending before another court or
administrative agency.

Sabitsana v. Villamor, 202 SCRA 405—pressuring MTC judge

In Re Justice Demetria, 355 SCRA 366—CA justice interfering with

prosecution of drug case

OCA vs. Judge de Guzman, 26 SCRA 292—influencing another RTC

judge to cancel notice of list pendens.
IN RE: VERIFIED COMPLAINT OF ENGR. OSCAR L.
ONGJOCO 664 S 465 2012)

A complaint against justices of the CA must be dismissed if the

same is baseless and the recourse of the party is to seek judicial
relief from an adverse decision.

TALENS-DABON vs ARCEO A.M. No. RTJ 96-1336 July 25,

1996

• A judge was dismissed from service for gross misconduct for

sexually harassing his Clerk of Court.
Section 4—Judges shall not allow family, social or other
relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. The
prestige of judicial office shall not be used or lent to advance the
private interest of others, nor convey or permit others to convey
the impression that they are in a special position to influence the
judge.

Section 5—Judges shall not only be free from inappropriate

connections with, and influence by, the executive and legislative
branches of government, but must also appear to be free
therefrom to a reasonable observer.
Section 6—Judges shall be independent in relation to society
in general and in relation to the particular parties to a dispute
which he or she has to adjudicate.

Section 7—Judges shall encourage and uphold safeguards for

the discharge of judicial duties in order to maintain and
enhance the institutional and operational independence of the
Judiciary.

Section 8- Judges shall exhibit and promote high standards of

judicial conduct in order to reinforce public confidence in the
judiciary, which is fundamental to the maintenance of judicial
independence
Distinctions between the court and the judge

PAMINTUAN vs LLORENTE 29 Phil 346

The court is an entity and the person who occupies the position is the judge.

A court may exist without a judge. There may be a judge without a court (judges at
large)

LUGUE vs KAYANAN 29 SCRA 173

Laid down the principle that administration of justice is a shared responsibility of

the judge and the lawyer.

It is the duty of both counsel and the judge to maintain not to destroy the high esteem
and regard for courts.
ROMERO vs VALLE 147 SCRA 197

The relation of judge and lawyer should be founded on

mutual respect and on deep appreciation by one of the duties
of the other.

OFFICE OF THE JUDGE AS DESCRIBED

GONZALES-AUSTRIA vs JUDGE ABAYA 176 SCRA
634
The office of a judge exists for one solemn end- to promote
justice by administering it fairly and impartially.

INCIONG vs DE GUIA 154 S 93

The judge is the visible representation of the law and of
justice. From him, the people draw their will and awareness
to obey the law. As such he should avoid even the slightest
infraction of the law.
ROMERO vs VALLE 147 SCRA 197

The relation of judge and lawyer should be founded on mutual respect and on
deep appreciation by one of the duties of the other.

OFFICE OF THE JUDGE AS DESCRIBED

GONZALES-AUSTRIA vs JUDGE ABAYA 176 SCRA 634
The office of a judge exists for one solemn end- to promote justice by
administering it fairly and impartially.

INCIONG vs DE GUIA 154 S 93

The judge is the visible representation of the law and of justice. From him, the
people draw their will and awareness to obey the law. As such he should avoid
even the slightest infraction of the law.
MACEDA vs VASQUEZ G.R. No. 102781 April 22, 1993

 Reiterating the power of the SC under Article VIII Section 5 1987 Constitution:

• It exclusively vests in the SC administrative supervision over all courts and court
personnel, from the Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals down to the lowest
municipal trial court clerk.

• By virtue of this power, it is only the SC that can oversee the judges and court
personnel’s compliance with the laws and take proper administrative action
against them if they commit any violation thereof.

• No other branch of government may intrude this power, without running afoul the
doctrine of separation of powers.
RES IPSA LOQUITUR DOCTRINE
vis-à-vis investigation of errant judge

 Read the case:

 IN RE: JUDGE BALTAZAR DIZON Adm.

Case 3086 May 31, 1989
What should the Office of the Ombudsman do if
a criminal complaint against a judge is filed with
that Office?

 MACEDA vs VASQUEZ gr 102781 April 22, 1993

 If the criminal complaint arises from their administrative

duties, the Ombudsman must defer action on said complaint

 It shall refer the same to the SC for determination whether said

judge or court employee had acted within their administrative
duties.

 Article VIII Sec 6 1987 Constitution exclusively vests in the

SC administrative supervision over all courts and court
personnel, from the Presiding Justice of the CA down to the
lowest municipal trial court clerk.
What should the Office of the Ombudsman do if a
criminal complaint against a judge is filed with
that Office?

 Under this power it is on the SC that can oversee the judges the
court personnel’s compliance with all laws, ad take the proper
administrative action against them if they commit any violation.

 No other branch of government may intrude into this power,

without running afoul the doctrine of separation of powers
Should a judge succumb
to pressure from
whatever source? Why? NO. to do so is equivalent to a case of
betrayal of public trust reposed on a
judge as an arbiter of the law and a
revelation of his weak moral
character.
RAMIREZ vs CORPUZ-
MACANDOG 144 S 462
A judge is expected to be fearless in
his pursuit to render justice, to be
unafraid to displease any person,
interest or power and to be equipped
with a moral fiber strong enough in
his office.
What is the import on the rule on voluntary inhibition of
judges?

GUTANG vs CA GR 124760 July 8, 1998

• The decision on whether or not to inhibit is left to the sound
discretion and conscience of the trial judge based on his rational and
logical assessment of the circumstances prevailing in the case
brought before him .
• It is a subjective test, the result of which the reviewing tribunal will
not disturb in the absence of any manifest finding of arbitrariness
and whimsicality.
• The judges themselves are in a better position to determine the issue
of inhibition as they are the ones who directly deal with the parties-
litigants in their courtroom.
 o A judge should avoid impropriety in all
Should a judge show activities.
undue interest in a • The judge shall refrain from influencing in any
manner the outcome of the litigation or dispute
pending case before pending before another court. Canon 2. Rule
another court? 2.04)

o Interference by members of the bench in

pending suits subvert the independence of

Why? the judiciary likewise undermines the

people’s faith in its integrity and
impartiality.
IMPAO vs MAKILALA AM No. MTJ-88—184

Judge’s private as well as official conduct must at all time

be free from the appearance of impropriety.
• The judge is a visible representation of the law and justice.
• From him, the people draw their will and awareness to obey the law.
• Judges are perceived as an intermediary of justice between two
conflicting interests.
• A judge must be the first to abide by the law and weave an example
for the other to follow”.
 May a judge issue a
subpoena to a person o CAAMIC vs GALAPON JR.,
who has no case in his
56 SCAD 14; 237 S 390
sala? Why?

o He has absolutely no power or authority to

issue a subpoena to such party.

NO.
o Equivalent to oppression. It constitutes
ignorance of the law and oppression which
should warrant disciplinary sanction.

Why should a judge who is
related to a party in a case
pending in his sala
disqualify himself?
GARCIA vs DE LA
PENA 48 SCAD 171
o Must observe compulsory disqualification
in case where the judge is related to either
of the party within the 6th degree of
consanguinity or affinity.
o No judge should preside in a case in which he
is not WHOLLY FREE, DISINTERESTED,
IMPARTIAL AND INDEPENDENT.
o How can your preserve the people’s faith and
confidence in the courts of justice if you are
deciding a case that involves your relatives or
nearest of kin?
 o SC held that the power to investigate a
Who has the power to complaint against a judge for alleged
investigate a judge who falsification of his certification of service is
falsified his certificate of lodged in the SC, thru the Court
service? Administrator.

o The Ombudsman is powerless to do so

under the principle of separation of powers.

MACEDA vs VASQUEZ o If it is a criminal case, the Ombudsman has

the power to investigate the judge.
Reminder in so far as the relationship of the
judge with society:
 Judges should as far as reasonably possible, refrain from all relations which
would normally tend to arouse suspicion that such relations wrap his
judgment and prevent an impartial attitude of mind in the administration of
judicial duties.

 Membership in the organizations should not interfere with their judicial tasks.
Reminder in so far as the relationship of the
judge with society:
 Should avoid extrajudicial activities which shall distract their time and efforts from
his or her official duties.

 Judges should not fraternize with litigants and their counsel.

 They should avoid them in order to avoid the perception that their independence has
been compromised.
INTEGRITY
Canon 2
Canon 2 INTEGRITY

• is essential not only to the proper discharge of the judicial office, but also to
the personal demeanor of judges.

Section 1—Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above
approach, but that it is perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable
observer.

In the judiciary, moral integrity is more than a cardinal virtue. It is a

necessity. (Fernandez v. Hamoy, 436 SCRA 186)

Ignorance of the law is a mark of incompetence, and where the law

involved is elementary, ignorance thereof is considered an indication
of lack of integrity (Macalintal v. The, 280 SCRA 623).
Section 2—The behavior and conduct of judges must
reaffirm the people’s faith in the integrity of the
Judiciary. Justice must not merely be done but must also
be seen to be done.
• In-chamber meetings without the presence of the other party must be
avoided (Capuno vs. Jaramillo, 243 SCRA 213)
• Maliciously kissing female subordinates (Talens-Dbon vs. Arceo, 29
SCRA 354, Dawa vs. De Asa, 292 SCRA 703)
• Judge must be gourd against losing his temper (Echano vs. Sunga,
102 SCRA 738)

Section 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
SOME OF THE GROUNDS FOR THE
DISMISSAL OF AJUDGE:

Acts that may warrant dismissal:

• Acceptance of bribe
• Holding office and conducting hearings at his residence
• Use of physical violence against a personnel of his court who failed
to deliver the entire volume of nipa ordered by him for the roof of
his house
• Receiving money from litigants and borrowing from them without
paying back
• Ordering a litigant to install an air conditioning unit of the car of his
wife.
FAVOR vs JUDGE CESAR UNTALAN A.M.
No. RTJ-08-2158 July 30, 2009

REASONS:
• Members of the judiciary should display not only the highest
integrity but at all times conduct themselves in such a manner
as to be beyond reproach and suspicion

• The respect and confidence of the public may justifiably be

eroded if the conduct of an erring judge is condemned.
IMPROPER CONDUCT WHICH MAY
WARRANT ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTIONS
• Judge who received gasoline from parties who have cases in
his sala and who received 1,000.00 from clerk of court he
recommended. (Dismissal)
• Judge failed to pay a just debt (fined Php 20,000.00)
• Judge who applied for RTC judge without revealing that he
has two (2) pending cases (guilty of gross misrepresentation)
• Judge using his chambers as his family’s residence
(government property is for official use only and not for the
personal use of the official)
• Court rooms cannot be used as judge’s living quarters
JUAN DE LA CRUZ vs CARRETAS 532 SCRA
218 2007
• A judge should posses the virtue of gravitas. He should be xxx
dignified in demeanor, refined in speech, and virtuous in
character x x x he must exhibit that hallmark judicial
temperament of utmost sobriety and self restraint
• A judge must at all times be temperate in his language. He must
choose his words, written or spoken, with utmost care and
sufficient control x x x
• A judge should always keep his passion guarded. He can never
allow it to run loose and overcome his reason.
• He descends to the level of a sharp-tongued, ill mannered pretty
tyrant when he utters harsh words or snide remarks x x x.
• As a result, he degrades the judicial office and erodes public
confidence in the judiciary
Judges are the public face of justice and the rule of law.

they have a duty to live up to the highest standard of integrity and impartiality in
order to preserve public trust

Using vulgar and manifesting conduct unbecoming of a judge

Manifesting a pattern of unprofessional conduct in terms of language and deed
Detailing his name and position in documents as Dr. Laarni N. Dajao
Making malicious and degrading statements in his Order
Here the judge used insulting and insensitive language in the order he issued such as
idiot, psychopath, big dick (penis) sadistic and homophobic baklita

• This is a language not befitting a judge.

• Judges are enjoined to be always temperate, patient and courteous both in the
conduct and the language.
• The unguarded written words as well as insinuations of a sexual relationship
between the parties involved in the case, he was hearing fell short of the
standard expected of a magistrate of the law and constituted vulgar and
unbecoming conduct that eroded public confidence in the judiciary.
• Noteworthy to remember that a judicial office circumscribed the personal
conduct of a magistrate and imposed a number of restrictions
That’s the price that judges have to pay for accepting and
occupying their exalted positions in the administration of
justice.

Judges have the duty to avoid the impression of impropriety in

order to protect the image and integrity of the judiciary.

adding Dr and PhD to his name in the subject order gives the
impression to at he is egotistical and wants to be recognized by
the litigants that other than a Magistrate, the inclusion of a title
in the order, other than his official designation as a judge, was
unwarranted.
Canon 2 rule 2.2 a judge should not seek
publicity for personal vainglory.

Vainglory refers to an individual’s excessive or

ostentatious or ride, especially in one’s
achievement

using the titles Dr and PhD is a clear example of

self promotion and vanity and disseminates
unnecessary publicity.
ANTIPORDA vs ANTE, JR. 851 S 196

Canon 2 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct states that “integrity is

essential not only to the proper discharge of the judicial office but also
to the personal demeanor of judges”.

Apart from being a display of arrogance, respondent’s demeanor and actuations,

which resulted in physical injuries to complainant, are in direct contravention of
the virtues of patience, sobriety, and self-restraint so espoused by the SC and
highly expected of a member of the judiciary.

Since respondent has retired on November 7, 2017, and hence, could not anymore
be dismissed from service, the SC instead finds it proper to order the forfeiture of
all of his retirement benefits (except accrued leave credits), and further disqualify
him from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including
government-owned or controlled corporations.
RE: ANONYMOUS LETTER-COMPLAINT (WITH ATTACHED PICTURES)
AGAINST ASSOCIATE JUSTICE NORMANDIE B. PIZARRO, COURT OF
APPEALS 858 S 312)

Justice Pizarro also violated Canons 2 and 4 of the New Code of Judicial
Conduct for Philippine Judiciary

Justice Pizarro, as a magistrate of the CA, is clearly a government official directly

involved in the administration of justice; and in the performance of such function, he
exercises discretion. Thus, by gambling in a casino, Justice Pizarro violated the
prohibition from gambling in casinos as provided under Section 14(4) (a) PD 1869 or
1896.

Although PD 1869 did not provide for a penalty for any act done in contravention of
its provision particularly the prohibition on gambling, in City Government of
Tagbilaran vs. Hontanosas, Jr, 375 S 1, it was held that such transgression constitutes
violations of paragraphs 3 and 22 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics.
RE: ANONYMOUS LETTER-COMPLAINT (WITH ATTACHED
PICTURES) AGAINST ASSOCIATE JUSTICE NORMANDIE B.
PIZARRO, COURT OF APPEALS 858 S 312)

A judge’s personal behavior outside the court, and not only while in the
performance of his official duties, must be beyond reproach, for he is
perceived to be the personification of law and justice.

The SC finds respondent Justice Pizarro guilty of conduct unbecoming of a

member of the judiciary.

OCA Circular 231-15 dated Oct 12, 2015, judges and court personnel were
strictly reminded that they cannot gamble or be seen in casinos.
Important reminders:

SAMSON vs CABALLERO AM RTJ-08-2138 Aug 5, 2009

• A judge can be dismissed from the service for making a false statement in
his PDS. It is a reprehensible (disgraceful) act of a judge. A judge lacks
integrity when he makes false statement in his PDS.
• Plain and simple an act of dishonesty and falsification of document
• That administrative case against respondent RTC Judge can also be
considered as a disciplinary case against him as a member of the Bar
pursuant to AM No. 02-9-02-SC, Resolution Re: “Automatic Conversion
of Some Administrative Cases Against Justices of the CA, SB Judges of
Regular and Special Courts and Court Officials who are Lawyers as
Disciplinary Proceedings Against them Both as such Officials and
Members of the Philippine Bar”
• DISMISSED and DISBARRED. (violated Canons 1 and 11 of CPR
“A judge should be like Caesar’s wife”. Explain

MARTINEZ vs GIRONELLA 65 S 245

• A judge must not only be pure but must also appear to be so. Must be beyond
suspicion.
• A judge has the duty not only to render a just and impartial decision but also render it in
such a manner as to be free from any suspicion as to its fairness and impartiality and
also as to the judge’s integrity.

YUSON vs NOEL 45 SCAD 116 ( Judge demanded and received

money from a party-litigant- a serious misconduct; showed that he can
be influenced by monetary considerations)
• A judge should always be a symbol of rectitude and propriety, comporting himself in a
manner that will raise no doubt whatsoever about his honesty.
 UNLAWFUL SOLICITATION warrant
dismissal from the service with forfeiture
of all retirement benefits, except accrued
leave benefits and with prejudice to
reemployment in the government,
including GOCC.

• Resignation does not preclude the findings of

OCA vs FORMER PRESIDING JUDGE
OWEN AMOR A.M. RTJ-00-1535,
November 10, 2020
any administrative liability to which he shall
still be answerable.
• He was convicted before the Sandiganbayan
• The cessation from office by resignation or
retirement neither warrants dismissal of the
administrative complaint nor does it render
moot and academic.
Can a judge issue a n order requiring a person to appear in his sala
and explain why he should not be cited for contempt when he
occupied the parking space allotted for the judge?

OCLARIT vs PADERANGGA 403 Phil 146

• It was held that the power to punish for contempt must be exercised on the
preservative, not vindictive principle and on the corrective and not retaliatory idea of
punishment.
• Courts must exercise the power to punish for contempt for purposes that are
impersonal, because the power is intended to safeguard not for the judge as persons,
but for the functions that they exercise .
IMPARTIALITY
Canon 3
IMPARTIALITY is essential to the proper discharge of the
judicial office. It applies not only to the decisions itself but also to
the process by which the decision was made.

 Sec. 1—Judges shall perform their judicial duties without favor, bias or
prejudice.
 Sec. 2—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 the judiciary.
Pimentel v. Salanga, 21 SCRA 160—people’s faith in the judiciary
 Parayno v. Meneses, 231 SCRA 807—duty to sit
 Datuin Jr. vs. Soriano, 391 SCRA 2—Regularity is presumed, Notatu Dignum
Sec. 3—Judges shall, so far as is reasonable, so conduct
themselves as to minimize the occasions on which it will be
necessary for them to be disqualified from hearing or deciding
cases.

Sec. 4—Judges shall not knowingly, while proceeding is before

or could come before them, make any comment that might be
reasonably be expected to affect the outcome of such
proceeding or impair the manifest fairness of the process. Nor
shall judges make any comment in public or otherwise that
might affect the fair trial or any person or issue..
• a. Publicity for personal vainglory should be avoided.
Sec. 5—Judges shall disqualify themselves in any proceedings in which
they are unable to decide the matter impartially or in which it may
appear to a reasonable observer that they are unable to decide the matter
partially. Such proceedings include, but are not limited to instances
where:
• Taken from Sec.1, Rule 137 of Revised Rules of Court
• Disqualification distinguished from inhibition

a) The judge has actual bias or prejudice concerning a party or personal

knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts.
Bias and partiality must stem from extra-judicial source

b) The judge has previously served as a lawyer or was a material

witness in the matter in controversy.
The judge’s objectivity will be impaired
The judge is not precluded from testifying after inhibiting
c) The judge or a member of his family has an economic interest in the outcome of
the matter in controversy.
Octubre vs. Valano, 343 SCRA 636—Judge did not disqualify himself and issued a
warrant of arrest in a criminal case where he is the complainant.

d) The judge served as executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or lawyer in the

matter in controversy, or a former associate of the judge served as counsel during
their association, or the judge or lawyer was a material witness therein.

e. The judge’s ruling in a lower court is the subject of review.

Sandoval v. CA, 260 SCRA 283—partial participation

f) The judge is related by consanguinity or affinity to a party litigant within
the sixth civil degree or to counsel within the fourth civil degree.
Villaluz v. Mijares, 288 SCRA 594—petitioner is judge’s daughter

g) The judge knows that his or her spouse or child has a financial interest as heir,
legatee, creditor, fiduciary, or otherwise, in the subject matter in controversy, or
in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially
affected by the outcome of the proceedings.
SC dismisses a judge who decides a case involving hubby Feb 17, 2020

 For not inhibiting from a case involving a husband among other offenses, the SC has
dismissed a trial court judge from the service

 judge violated sec 5 (g) Canon 3 and secs 1 and 4 Canon 4 of the 2004 rules of
judicial conduct and for gross ignorance of the law.

 judge disregarded the canons on impartiality and propriety

 She decided a case where her husband is involved

 She approved an unconscionable compromise agreements to favor a cooperative of

which her husband is a member of the board of directors

 Such is gross ignorance of the law and abuse of authority

Sec. 6—if the parties and lawyer, independently of the judge’s
participation, all agree in writing that the reason for the
inhibition is immaterial or unsubstantial, the judge may then
participate in the proceedings. The agreement, signed by all the
parties and lawyers, shall be incorporated in the record of the
proceedings.

 “Remittal of disqualification”—Code of Judicial Conduct

Should a judge hear a pending case in his sala where a party is
related to him?

 NO. Follow the rule of compulsory disqualification where a judge is related within
the 6th degree of consanguinity or affinity to a party.
 - this is based on the salutary principle that no judge should preside in a case where
he is not wholly free, disinterested, impartial and independent.

 A judge has both the duty of rendering a just decision and the duty of doing in a
manner completely free from suspicion as to its fairness and as to his integrity .
 The law conclusively presumes that a judge cannot objectively or impartially sit in
such a case and decide on it.
 Unless there is written consent of all the parties.
Inhibition on discretionary grounds; but decision is not conclusive:

 A matter of conscience and sound discretion

 Judges have a duty to sit, and inhibition should be resorted to sparingly
 Vda. De Bonifacio vs. BLT Bus CO., 34 SCRA 618—fact that one of the counsels
appearing was classmate of the judge is not a ground for inhibition
 Paredes Jr., vs. Sandiganbayan, 252, SCRA 541—mere divergence of opinion as to
law applicable not a ground for inhibition.
 Mantaring vs. Roman, 254 SCRA 158—filing of an administrative case against a
judge not a ground for disqualification.
 Bellosillo Saludo, A.M. 3297, April 6, 1989—membership in a college fraternity or
civic group not a ground for inhibition.
 Bautista vs. Causapin, 652 SCRA 442—drinking spree with litigant’s ground for
inhibition
PACO vs QUILALA ET AL., AM No. RT J-02-1699 413 SCRA
364
• A judge together with the Clerk f Court and the court stenographer assigned to his
court were also sanctioned by the SC.
• The Court said that except for clarificatory questions, the judge may not be allowed to
ask questions that would elicit answers to favor one of the parties to the case.
• It is not also proper for the judge to allow the Clerk of Court to conduct any
proceeding in the absence of the judge and for the stenographer to transcribe such
proceedings.
VILLALUZ vs MIJARES AM No. RT J-
98-1402 288 SCRA 594
• This case was filed by Justice Villaluz, the former
spouse of Pasay City RTC Judge Mijares, against her.
• The SC called the attention of Mijares that the Rules of
Court prohibit judges from hearing cases involving
relatives up to 6th civil degree of consanguinity or
affinity.
• In the same fashion a member of the bench may not
hear cases where a counsel is a relative up to the 4th
civil degree of consanguinity or affinity.
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR vs DUMAYAS 857
S 394

Under Canon 3 of the NCJC, impartiality applies not only to the decision
itself, but also to the process by which the decision is made.

When the inefficiency springs from a failure to recognize such a basic and fundamental
rule, law or principle, the judge is either too incompetent and undeserving of the
position and title vested upon him, or he is too vicious that he deliberately committed
the oversight or omission in bad faith and in grave abuse of authority.

Where the law is straightforward and the facts so evident, failure to know it or to
act as if one does not know it constitutes gross ignorance of the law.
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR vs DUMAYAS
857 S 394

For liability to attach for ignorance of the law, the assailed order, decision
or actuation of the judge in the performance of official duties must not only
be found erroneous, but, most importantly, it must also be established that he
was moved by bad faith, dishonesty, hatred, or some similar motive.

To warrant dismissal from service, the misconduct must be grave,

serious, important, weighty, momentous and not trifling.
PROPRIETY

Canon 4
Propriety and the appearance of propriety are essential to all activities of a judge

Concept of propriety—conformity to prevailing customs and usages (American

Heritage Dictionary)

Sec. 1—Judges shall avoid impropriety and appearance of impropriety in all their
activities.

• a) His behavior not only on the bench but also in every day life should be beyond
reproach.

• b) Acts not per se improper can be perceived by the larger community as such.
c) Instances of improper conduct:

 . Judge who heard case while on vacation and dressed only in a polo shirt (Liwanag
v. Lusre, A.M. MTJ-08-98-1168, April 21, 1999)
 Tasteless jokes in a wedding ceremony (Hadap v. Lee, 114 SCRA 599)
 Drunken behavior in public (De la Paz v. Inutan, 64 SCRA 540)
 Making insulting statements to a lawyer who did not graduate from UP (Mane vs.
Judge Belen, A.M. RTJ-08-2119, June 30, 2001)
 Use of court letterhead for private letter (Ladigon vs. Garong, A.M. MTJ-08-1712,
Aug. 20, 2008)
 Immorality
 Intoxication
 Use of guns to terrorize or pistol-whip
 Use of intemperate language
 Failure to pay debts
A judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of
impropriety in all his activities.

 . REX TUPAL vs JUDGE V. ROJO etc., A.M. No. MTJ014-1842 Feb 24, 2014

 The court held Judge Rojo guilty of violating the New Code of Judicial Conduct and
Circular 1-90, and of gross ignorance of the law.

 He was suspended for 6 months for having notarized affidavits of cohabitation,

which were documents not connected with the exercise of his official functions and
duties as solemnizing officer.

 He also notarized affidavits of cohabitation without certifying that lawyers or

notaries public were lacking in his court’s territorial jurisdiction.
. REX TUPAL vs JUDGE V. ROJO etc., A.M. No. MTJ014-1842
Feb 24, 2014

 As a solemnizing officer, the judge’s only duty involving affidavit of

cohabitation is to examine whether the parties have indeed lived together for
at least five years without legal impediment to marry.

 The guidelines does not state that the judge can notarize the parties’ affidavit
of cohabitation. Notarizing affidavits of cohabitation is inconsistent with the
duty to examine the parties’ requirements for marriage.

 Circular No. 1-90 dated Feb 26, 1990, allows municipal trial court judges to
act as notaries public ex officio and notarize documents only if connected
with the official functions and duties.
ANTONIO M. LORENZANA vs JUDGE CECILIA I. AUSTRIA
A.M. No. RJ-09-2200 April 2, 2014

 The court held the conduct of a judge of and posting a picture with indecent
attire for the public’s consumption in her Frendster account is inappropriate.

 The court held that she was guilty of impropriety.

 While judges are not prohibited from becoming members of and from taking
part in social networking activities, they do not shed off their status as judges.

 They carry with them in cyberspace the same ethical responsibilities and duties
that every judge is expected to follow in his/her everyday activities.
ANTONIO M. LORENZANA vs JUDGE CECILIA I. AUSTRIA
A.M. No. RJ-09-2200 April 2, 2014

 Judge Austria was guilty of impropriety when she posted her pictures in a
manner viewable by the public.

 Joining Frendster per se does not violate the New Code of Judicial Conduct.

 The court said that Judge Austria disregarded the propriety and appearance of
propriety required of her when she posted frendster photos of herself wearing
an off shoulder suggestive dress and made this available for public viewing.
Sec. 2—As a subject of constant public scrutiny, judges must accept
personal restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the
ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly. In particular,
judges shall conduct themselves in a way that is consistent with the
dignity of the judicial office.

• a. Use of intemperate language is improper, even if addressed

no one

(Re Anonymous Complaint against Judge Edmundo T. Acuna,

464 SCRA 250, Cua Shuk Yin vs. Perello, 474 SCRA 472)
Sec. 3—Judges shall, in their personal relations with individual members of
the legal profession who practice regularly in their courts, avoid situations
which might reasonably give rise to the suspicion or appearance of
favoritism or partially.

Padilla vs. Zantua, 237 SCRA 670—eating with lawyer in public

Sec. 4—A judge shall not participate in the determination of a case in which
any member of their family represents a litigant or is associated in any manner
with the case.

Vidal v. Dojillo Jr., 483 SCRA 264—moral support for brother

Sec. 5—Judges shall not allow the use of their residence by a
member of the legal profession to receive clients of the latter or
of other members of the legal profession.

Sec. 6—Judges like any other citizen, are entitled to freedom of expression, belief,
association and assembly, but in exercising such rights, they shall always conduct
themselves in such a manner as to preserve the dignity of the judicial office and the
impartiality and independence of the Judiciary.

Macias v. Arula, 115 SCRA 135—participating in a political rally

In re Judge Acuna, 464 SCRA 250—use of expletives (curses,

obsceneties)
Sec. 7—Judges shall inform themselves about their personal
fiduciary and financial interests and shall make reasonable
efforts to be informed about the financial interests of members of
their family.

Sec. 8—Judge’s shall not use or lend the prestige of the judicial office to
advance their private interests or those of a member of their family, or of
anyone else, nor shall they convey or permit others to convey the impression
that anyone is in a special position improperly to influence them in the
performance of judicial duties..
• Dionisio v. Escano, 302 SCRA 411—posting notices for family restaurant business in court
bulletin board

Sec. 9—Confidential information acquired by a judges in their judicial

capacity shall not be used or disclosed for any other purpose related to their
judicial duties.
Sec. 10—Subject to the proper performance of judicial duties, judges may:

a. Write, lecture, teach and participate in activities concerning the law, the
legal system, the administration of justice or related activities.

b. Appear at a public hearing before an official body concerned with

matters relating to the law, the legal system, the administration of justice or
related matters;

c. Engage in other activities if such activities do not detract from the

dignity of the judicial office or otherwise interfere with the performance of
judicial duties.

In re Designation of Judge Rodolfo Manzano, AM 88-7-861-RTC—

constitutional prohibition against designation of judges to agencies performing
quasi-judicial or administrative functions.
Sec. 11—Judges shall not practice law while the holder of judicial office.

Carual v. Brusola, 317 SCRA 34—may serve as an executor, administrator, trustee,

guardian or other fiduciary when estate or trust, or word, is member of immediate
family, and will not interfere with performance of judicial duties.

MTC judges as notaries public ex officio, may not notarize private documents, except
(1) when no lawyers available in the municipality, and (2) notarial fees are paid to the
government’s account.
Sec. 12—Judge’s may form or join
association of judges or participate in other
organization representing the interests of
judges.

Sec. 13—Judge’s and members of their families

shall neither ask for nor accept any gift, bequest,
loan or favor in relation to anything done or to be
done or entitled to be done by him in connection
with the performance of judicial duties.
Sec. 14—Judges shall not knowingly permit court staff or others
subject to their influence, direction or authority, to ask for or
accept any gift, bequest, loan or favor in relation to anything
done or to be done or entitled to be done in connection with their
duties and functions.

SEC. 15—subject to law and to any legal requirements of public

disclosure, judges may receive a token gift, award or benefit as
appropriate to the occasion on which it is made, provided that
such gift, award or benefit might not be reasonably perceived as
intended to influence the judge in the performance of official
duties or otherwise give rise to an appearance of partiality.

• GIFTS FROM FOREIGN SOURCES GOVERNED BY SEC. 7 (D) OF R.A. 6713

Canon 5 – EQUALITY
Ensuring Equality of treatment to all before the courts is essential
to the due performance of judicial duties.

Sec. 1—Judges shall be aware of and understand diversity in society

and differences arising from various sources, including, but not limited
to, race, color, sex, religion, national origin, caste, disability, age,
marital status, sexual orientation, social and economic status, and other
like causes.
Awareness of international instruments concerning equality of human
beings, and rights of women and children.
Gender and Development Mainstreaming Plan for the Philippine
Judicial System adopted on December 9, 2003.
Sec. 2—Judges shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct,
manifest bias or prejudice towards any person or group on irrelevant grounds.

Sec. 3—Judges shall carry out judicial duties with appropriate consideration for all
person, such as the parties, witnesses, lawyers, court staff, and judicial colleagues,
without differentiation on any irrelevant ground, immaterial to the proper
performance of such duties.

Sec. 4—Judges shall not knowingly permit court staff or others subject to his or her
influence, direction or control to differentiate between persons concerned in a matter
before the judge on any irrelevant ground.

Sec. 5—Judges shall require lawyers in proceedings before the court to refrain from
manifesting bias or prejudice based on irrelevant grounds, except such as are legally
relevant to an issue in proceedings and may be the subject of legitimate advocacy..
COMPETENCE AND
DILIGENCE

Canon 6
Competence and diligence are prerequisites to the due performance of judicial office.

• Sec. 1—The judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all other activities.

• The primary duty of judge is to hear and decide cases

• CA justice dismissed for failure to decide cases and motions on time

Sec. 2—Judges shall devote their professional activity to judicial duties, which include not
only the performance of judicial functions and responsibilities in court and the making of
decisions, but also other tasks relevant to the judicial office or the court’s operation.

• Other tasks of judge—record keeping and supervision of person

Sec. 3—Judges shall take reasonable steps to maintain and enhance their knowledge, skills
and personal qualities necessary for the proper performance of judicial duties, taking
advantage for this purpose the training and other facilities which should be made available
under judicial control, to judges.

• Verginesa v. Dilag, 580 SCRA 491—presumed to have more than cursory knowledge of rules of
procedure.

Sec. 4—Judges shall keep themselves informed about relevant developments of international
law, including international conventions and other instruments establishing human rights
norms.

• Two general source of international law—customary and conventional norms.

Sec. 5—Judges shall perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions,
efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness.
a.Periods for decision fixed by Constitution:

• 24 months for the Supreme Court

• 12 months for the lower collegiate courts
• 3 months for lower courts
• to be counted for submission (filing of last pleading or memorandum required)

New rules: 6 months (180 calendar days) from the filing of the case

• Judge Shall decide the case not exceeding 90 calendar days (3 months) from the
submission of the case for resolution. (defendant rested its case)
Sec. 6—Judges shall maintain order and decorum in all proceedings before the court, and
be patient, dignified and courteous in relation to litigants, witnesses, lawyers and others
with whom the judge deals in an official capacity. Judges shall require similar conduct of
legal representatives, court staff and other subject to their influence, direction or control.

Sec. 7—Judges shall not engage in conduct incompatible with the diligent discharge
of judicial duties.
GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW

a. is the disregard of basic rules and settled jurisprudence.

b. a judge may also be administratively liable if shown to have been motivated by

bad faith, fraud, dishonesty or corruption in ignoring, contradicting or failing to
apply settled law and jurisprudence.

HEIRS OF THE LATE NASSER YASIN vs JUDGE FELIX 66 SCAD 157

• When is a judge liable for rendering an unjust judgment?

• A judge may be liable for rendering an unjust judgment when he acts in bad faith,
malice, revenge, or some other like motive
DE VEGA vs ASDALA A.M. No. RTJ-06-1997 October 23, 2006

A Judge solemnized marriage even if the requirements submitted by the

couple were incomplete and of questionable character. Most of the
documents showed visible signs of tampering, erasures, corrections and
superimpositions of entries related to the parties’ place of residence. May the
judge be subject to disciplinary actions?

Yes. This action of a judge constitutes gross inefficiency. It was held that
inefficiency implies negligence, incompetence, ignorance and carelessness.
The presumption of regularity in the performance of duties
may be rebutted by “affirmative evidence of irregularity or
failure to perform a duty”.

The visible superimpositions on the marriage license should

have alerted the solemnizing judge to the irregularity of the
issuance.

The respondent judge violated Canons 2 and 6 of the Canons

of Judicial Ethics which exact competence, integrity and
probity in the performance of his duties.

Ignorance of the law is a mark of incompetence and where

the law involved is elementary, ignorance thereof is
considered an indication of “lack of integrity”
CONCERNED CITIZENS v ELMA 58 SCAD 720

Is the act of the judge in granting bail in capital

offense without conducting a hearing proper?
• No. before the judge may grant bail in capital offense,
there must be a hearing to determine whether the
evidence of guilt is strong or not.
• The conduct of such hearing is mandatory.
• To do away with the requisite bail hearing is to dispense
with the time-tested safeguard against arbitrariness
Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC-
Branch 20, Manila, A.M. No. 00-1-48-RTC (Resolution),
[October 12, 2000], 396 PHIL 749-755) bail hearing is to
dispense with the time-tested safeguard against
arbitrariness.
• An administrative complaint was filed against the respondent RTC
judge for failure to resolve several civil cases within the 90-day
reglementary period and failure to act upon several other cases for a
considerable length of time.
• Except for the amount of fine, the Supreme Court agreed with the
recommendation of the OCA and found respondent judge liable for
failure to decide and/or act upon the subject cases within the
reglementary period provided by law.
The Court found unsatisfactory the explanation of respondent judge since
he merely specified the dates when said cases were supposedly
promulgated without apprising the Court of any valid explanation as to
the delay in the disposition and resolution thereof.

No less than the Constitution mandates that all cases or matters filed
before all lower courts shall be decided within three months from the
date of submission thereof. Rule 3.05 of Canon 3 of the
Code of Judicial Conduct admonishes all judges to dispose of the court's
business promptly and decide cases within the periods fixed by law.

The ninety-day period for deciding cases should be observed by all

judges, unless they have been granted additional time.
Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC-Branch 20,
Manila, A.M. No. 00-1-48-RTC (Resolution), [October 12, 2000], 396
PHIL 749-755) bail hearing is to dispense with the time-tested
safeguard against arbitrariness.

Certainly, this Court has consistently impressed upon judges the need
to decide cases promptly and expeditiously, pursuant to Rule 3.05,
Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Section 15(l) and (2),
Article VII of the Constitution.

Judges are repeatedly reminded that failure to decide cases within the
required period is not excusable and constitutes gross inefficiency
which is a ground for administrative sanction against the defaulting
judge.

Under these circumstances, respondent judge clearly transgressed the

applicable rules relating to the proper and speedy disposition and
resolution of cases within the reglementary period provided by law.
For the standing rule is that the ninety-day period for deciding cases
should be observed by all judges, unless they have been granted
additional time.

Stated differently, magistrates of the law are, in this jurisdiction, not

without adequate remedy to balance the proper administration of justice
with the strict demands and exigencies of judicial service.

Thus, judges when burdened by heavy caseloads which prevent them

from disposing their cases within the reglementary period may, with
leave of this Court, ask for additional time, especially when difficult
questions of law are involved.|||
Reference Materials:

Legal and Judicial Ethics (A.M. No. 2209-01-SC)

Dean David Robert C. Aquino
Legal and Judicial Ethics Review, Albano

New Code of Judicial Conduct for Philippine Judiciary

Rules of Court
Caveat: This material is subject to continual updating.