Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
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.
SATURNINA GALMAN, et. al vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (1986)
In rendering its decision the Sandiganbayan overdid itself in favoring the presidential
directive. Its bias and partiality in favor of the accused was glaringly obvious. The
evidence presented by the prosecution was totally ignored and disregarded. ... It was
deemed not sufficient to simply acquit all of the twenty-six accused on the standard
ground that their guilt had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt, as was the most
logical and appropriate way of justifying the acquittal in the case, there not being a
total absence of evidence that could show guilt on the part of the accused. The
decision had to pronounce them 'innocent of the crime charged on the two
informations, and accordingly, they incur neither criminal nor civil liability.' It is a
rare phenomenon to see a person accused of a crime to be favored with such total
absolution.
The Supreme Court cannot permit such a sham trial and verdict and travesty of justice
to stand unrectified. The courts of the land under its aegis are courts of law and justice
and equity. They would have no reason to exist if they were allowed to be used as
mere tools of injustice, deception and duplicity to subvert and suppress the truth,
instead of repositories of judicial power whose judges are sworn and committed to
render impartial justice to all alike who seek the enforcement or protection of a right
or the prevention or redress of a wrong, without fear or favor and removed from the
pressures of politics and prejudice.
SEC. 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.
MERCEDITA G. LORENZO vs. JUDGE PRIMO L. MARQUEZ (1988)
A judge cannot sit in any case in which he was a counsel without the written consent
of all the parties in interest, signed by them and entered upon the record. The
respondent alleged that since there was no objection from any of the parties, he
proceeded to preside over the case and to decide it. This is a clear violation of the law.
The rule is explicit that he must secure the written consent of all the parties, not a
mere verbal consent much. less a tacit acquiescence. More than this, said written
consent must be signed by them and entered upon the record.
The Judge here was dismissed.
SEC. 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.
SEC. 2. The behavior and conduct of judges must reaffirm the peoples
faith in the integrity of the judiciary. Justice must not merely be done
but must also be seen to be done.
EMMA J. CASTILLO vs. JUDGE MANUEL M. CALANOG
Generally the Court attaches no persuasive value to affidavits of
desistance, especially when executed as an afterthought, as in the case at bar.
Even if Emma Castillo had not filed her Affidavit of Desistance, the Court would n
ot have been swayed solely by her allegations, and it found from the testimony of Jos
e Javier that the formers charges, indeed, rest on sufficient grounds. Aside from this,
there were evidences adduced to support the allegations, like the birth certificate of th
eir alleged son where stated that the father is Judge Calanog. Also, the child is
listed in the Brgy census record, and it was a verified from NHA that the
condominium unit was owned by the judge, although not yet fully paid.
Hon.Manuel M. Calanog, Jr., is found guilty by the Supreme Court of
IMMORALITY and is DISMISSED from the roll of judges, with prejudice to
his reinstatement or appointment to any public office including a governmentowned or controlled corporation, and forfeiture of retirement benefits.
SEC. 3. Judges should take or initiate appropriate disciplinary measures
against lawyers or court personnel for unprofessional conduct of which
the judge may have become aware.
IN RE SOTTO
Mere criticism or comment on the correctness or wrongness, soundness or
unsoundness of the decision of the court in a pending case made in good faith may be
tolerated; because if well founded it may enlighten the court and contribute to the
correction of an error if committed; but if it is not well taken and obviously
erroneous, it should, in no way, influence the court in reversing or modifying its
decision. As a member of the bar and an officer of the courts Atty. Vicente Sotto, like
any other, is in duty bound to uphold the dignity and authority of this Court, to which
he owes fidelity according to the oath he has taken as such attorney, and not to
promote distrust in the administration of justice. An attorney as an officer of the court
is under special obligation to be respectful in his conduct and communication to the
courts, he may be removed from office or stricken from the roll of attorneys as being
guilty of flagrant misconduct. Decision: Atty. Sotto guilty of contempt. Fine of 1,000
with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. He is also required to show cause
why he should not be disbarred.
CANON 3
IMPARTIALITY
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.
SEC. 1. Judges shall perform their judicial duties without favor, bias or
prejudice.
In Re Aguas
the opinion of the court that the action of the judge in seizing Alberto Aguas by the
shoulder and turning him about was unwarranted and an interference with that
freedom from unlawful personal violence to which every witness is entitled while
giving testimony in a court of justice. Against such conduct the appellant had the right
to pretest and to demand that the incident be made a matter of record. That he did so
was not contempt, providing protest and demand were respectfully made and
with due regard for the dignity of the court *** While lawyers are prohibited to
attribute motives to a judge not supported by the record, lawyers must however be
courageous enough to expose arbitrariness and injustices of courts and judges
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 of the
judiciary.
TOMAS CABULISAN, complainant, vs. JUDGE ADRIAN N. PAGALILAUAN
People who run the judiciary, particularly justices and judges, must not only be
proficient in both the substantive and procedural aspects of the law, but more
importantly, they must possess the highest degree of integrity and probity and an
unquestionable moral uprightness both in their public and private lives.
By committing the prurient acts in question, respondent violated the trust reposed in
him and utterly failed to live up to the noble ideals and rigid standards of morality
required in the judicial profession.
We absolve respondent however of the charge that he was keeping a mistress. From
the evidence, the woman alluded to was Divina Calaycay who happened to be the
private respondents.
SEC. 4. Judges shall not knowingly, while a proceeding is before or
could come before them, make any comment that might 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 of any person or issue.
NICOLAS FECUNDO, petitioner, vs. HON. RAMON BERJAMEN
We do not, however, find any grave abuse of discretion or excess of jurisdiction in
respondent judges denial of the motion to inhibit for non-compliance with the three (3)
day notice rule. Section 4, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court requires that notice of a motion
be served by the movant on all parties concerned at least three (3) days before the
hearing thereof. Section 5 of the same Rule provides that the notice shall be directed to
the parties concerned, and shall state the time and place for the hearing of the motion. A
motion which does not meet the requirements of Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the
Rules of Court is considered a worthless piece of paper which the clerk has no right to
receive and the court has no authority to act upon. This contention or observation is a
non-sequitur. Tardiness or delay in the disposition of election cases in other courts does
not connote partiality of the presiding judge in election cases speedily disposed of. A
spotless dispensation of justice requires not only that the decision rendered be
intrinsically fair but that the judge rendering it must, at all times, maintain the appearance
of fairness and impartiality. His language, both written and spoken, must be guarded and
measured, lest the best of intentions be misconstrued construed.
apprehensive that respondent might exert influence to favor himself, to the detriment
of his said adversary. And so it turned out, this was precisely the substance of
complainant's second charge. Indeed, instead of promoting public confidence in the
dignity, honor, integrity and independence of the Judiciary, as every Judge is urged to
do by the Canons just cited, respondent's aforesaid behavior produced the opposite
result." Respondent Judge, Salvador P. de Guzman, Jr. is guilty on three (3) counts, of
irresponsible, improper and dishonorable conduct in disregard of the Code of Judicial
Ethics, he is hereby SEVERELY CENSURED, with a stern warning that a repetition
of the said acts or similar acts in the future shall receive graver sanctions
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.
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.
SEC. 9. Confidential information acquired by judges in their judicial
capacity shall not be used or disclosed for any other purpose related to
their judicial duties.
LEON UMALE, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE ONOFRE VILLALUZ
Herein respondent Judge should be commended this time for heeding Our ruling in
the case of Geotina vs. Gonzales that "a judge, sitting on a case must at all times be
fully free, disinterested, impartial and independent. Elementary due process requires a
hearing before an impartial and disinterested tribunal. A judge has both the duty of
rendering a just decision and the duty of doing it in a manner completely free from
suspicion as to his fairness and as to his integrity."
And Mr. Justice Fernando, speaking for the Court, in the case of Mateo, Jr., et al. vs.
Honorable Onofre Villaluz, etc., supra, added that: "... it is made clear to the
occupants of the bench that outside of pecuniary interest, relationship or previous
participation in the matter that calls for adjudication, there may be other causes that
could conceivably erode the trait of objectivity, thus calling for inhibition. That is to
betray a sense of realism, for the factors that lead to preferences or Predilections are
many and varied. It is well, therefore, that if any such should make its appearance and
prove difficult to resist, the better course for a judge is to disqualify himself. That
way, he avoids being misunderstood. His reputation for probity and objectivity is
preserved. What is even more important, the ideal of an impartial administration of
justice is lived up to. Thus is due process vindicated." Consequently, herein
respondent Judge committed no abuse of discretion..
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 matters;
(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: Rodolfo Manzano
Quasi-Judicial has a fairly clear meaning and Judges can confidently refrain from
participating in the work of any Administrative Agency which adjudicates disputes &
controversies involving the rights of parties within its jurisdiction.
Administrative functions are those which involve the regulation and control over the
conduct & affairs of individuals for their own welfare and the promulgation of rules
and regulations to better carry out the policy of the Legislature or such as are
devolved upon the administrative agency by the organic law of its existence.
Administrative functions as used in Sec. 12 refers to the Governments executive
machinery and its performance of governmental acts. It refers to the management
actions, determinations, and orders of executive officials as they administer the laws
and try to make government effective. There is an element of positive action, of
supervision or control.
SEC. 11. Judges shall not practice law whilst the holder of judicial
office.
TUZON, complainant, vs. JUDGE LORETO CLORIBEL-PURUGGANAN
Under Section 35, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, and Rule 5.07 of the Code
of Judicial Conduct, judges are prohibited from engaging in the private practice of
law. This is based on public policy because the rights, duties, privileges and functions
of the office of an attorney-at-law are inherently incompatible with the high official
functions, duties, powers, discretion and privileges of a judge.
Regarding the other charges of complainant, we find no proof that respondent
antedated her decision in Civil Case 4269. Further, no adequate evidence supports
complainants charges of gross ignorance of the law, serious misconduct, evident bias
and partiality, and knowingly rendering an unjust judgment. Thus, these charges
should be dismissed.
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby finds respondent judge Loreto Cloribel-Purugganan
guilty of illegal practice of law, in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct and the
Revised Rules of Court.
SEC. 12. Judges may form or join associations of judges or participate
in other organizations representing the interests of judges.
SEC. 13. Judges 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 omitted to be done by him or her 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
omitted to be done in connection with their duties or 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 reasonably be perceived as intended to
influence the judge in the performance of judicial duties or otherwise
give rise to an appearance of partiality.
ATTY. DAVID G. OMPOC vs. JUDGE NORITO E. TORRES
After having carefully examined the records in this case, the Court is convinced that
respondent Judge did commit the acts with which he was charged. In receiving
P5,000.00 and P3,000.00 from a party to a litigation before him, as loans which he
never paid back and which to all appearances he never intended to pay back, and in
refusing or failing to pay for an air conditioner installed in his wife's automobile van
by a shop owned by a party litigant before him, respondent Judge is guilty of serious
misconduct in office and of acts unbecoming a member of the judiciary. Members of
the judiciary should display not only the highest integrity but must at all times
conduct themselves in such manner as to be beyond reproach and suspicion. 'The
judge is the visible representation of the law and, more importantly of justice. From
him, the people draw their will and awareness to obey the law. They see in him an
intermediary of justice between two conflicting interests, Thus, for the judge to return
that regard, he must be the first to abide by the law and weave an example for the
others to follow. He should be studiously careful to avoid even the slightest infraction
of the law.'
ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to DISMISS respondent Judge from the service
CANON 5
EQUALITY
testimony may prove or disprove matters in issue, the judge should avoid any
unseemly display of shortness of temper or other unbecoming behaviour. A judge
should not allow himself to be led by counsel or witnesses into showing that he can
be moved by pride, prejudice, passion, or pettiness in the performance of his official
functions. It is precisely during such trying moments that a judge should be studiously
careful about his conduct and in the measures he takes to uphold the court's authority
and dignity. However, the actuations of the trial judge showing some impatience
against the appellants did not preclude them from adequately presenting their case,
We have examined the records carefully and we find that the appealed decision was
not based on any matters improperly elicited by the trial Judge during his examination
of the witnesses nor has it been affected by the quoted remarks. Appellants were
given all the opportunity to present their evidence.
CANON 6
COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE
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.
OCA vs lansang
Judge Virgilio S. Lansang GUILTY of the charges complained of. His actuations,
practices and conduct are unbecoming of a judicial officer; his acts of commission
and omission having been committed through admitted negligence on his part, failure
to report to the Supreme Court or to the Court Administrator, his grievances against
his own Clerk of Court against whom he never filed any formal complaints regarding
the latter's alleged irregularities; his apparent acceptance of the accuracy of the
reports submitted by his Clerk of Court; and unmitigated failure to ask for
administrative remedies from the Supreme Court and Court Administrator and the
existence up to now of 182 pending cases which according to the Court Administrator
had been submitted for decision, and not merely pending trial. The Court likewise
Resolved not to accept such resignation (acceptance of resignations from the judiciary
being a prerogative of the President of the Philippines), but instead to consider him
RETIRED, with all benefits and gratuities forfeited.
SEC. 2. Judges shall devote their professional activity to judicial duties,
which include not only the performance of judicial functions and
WHEREFORE, the order of the trial court dated December 22, 1983, denying the
motion for the trial in absentia of the accused is set aside. The respondent judge is
directed to continue hearing the case against the respondent Mario Abong in
absentia as long as he has not reappeared, until it is terminated.
SEC. 4. Judges shall keep themselves informed about relevant
developments of international law, including international conventions
and other instruments establishing human rights norms.
ENRIQUEZ, vs. JUDGE ANACLETO L. CAMINADE
Diligence in keeping up-to-date with the decisions of this Court is a commendable
virtue of judges and, of course, members of the bar. Comprehending the Courts
decisions is a different matter, however, for it is in this area where ones competence
may be tested and proven. Those who accept this exalted position owe the public and
this Court the ability to be proficient in the law and the duty to maintain professional
competence at all times. Indeed, competence is a mark of a good judge. This exalted
position entails a lot of responsibilities, foremost of which is proficiency in the law.
One cannot seek refuge in a mere cursory knowledge of statutes and procedural rules.
Respondent judge fell short of these standards when he failed in his duties to follow
elementary law and to keep abreast with prevailing jurisprudence. Service in the
judiciary involves continuous study and research from beginning to end.
Exacting as these standards may be, judges are expected to be personifications of
justice and the rule of law and, as such, to have more than just a modicum
acquaintance with statutes and procedural rules. Essential to every one of them is
faithfulness to the laws and maintenance of professional competence.
Judges are not common individuals whose gross errors "men forgive and time
forgets." For when they display an utter lack of familiarity with the rules, they erode
the confidence of the public in the competence of our courts.Such lack is gross
ignorance of the law. Verily, failure to follow basic legal commands and rules
constitutes gross ignorance of the law, of which no one is excused, and surely not a
judge.
Judge Anacleto L. Caminade is found guilty of gross ignorance of the law, for which
he is FINED in the amount of twenty thousand pesos (P20,000).
SEC. 5. Judges shall perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of
reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness.
SANGGUNIANG BAYAN OF BATAC, ILOCOS NORTE, complainant, vs. JUDGE
EFREN F. ALBANO
respondent judge has violated the rules on preliminary investigation and issuance of a
warrant of arrest since the start of his term as municipal judge in Batac, Ilocos Norte
in September 1991. The gross ignorance of respondent judge has immensely
prejudiced the administration of justice. Parties adversely affected by his rulings
dismissing their complaints after preliminary investigation have been denied their
statutory right of review that should have been conducted by the provincial
prosecutor. His practice of issuing warrants of arrest without examining the
complainants and their witnesses is improvident and could have unnecessarily
deprived the accused of their liberty however momentary it may be. Our Constitution
requires that all members of the judiciary must be of proven competence, integrity,
probity and independence. Respondent judges stubborn adherence to improper
procedures and his constant violation of the constitutional provision requiring him to
personally examine the complainant and the witness in writing and under oath before
issuing a warrant of arrest makes him unfit to discharge the functions of a judge.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, respondent Judge Efren F. Albano is DISMISSED
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 others subject to their influence,
direction or control.
SEC. 7. Judges shall not engage in conduct incompatible with the
diligent discharge of judicial duties.