Rule 140 of Rules of Court (as amended)

Rule 140 of Rules of Court: DISCIPLINE OF JUDGES OF REGULAR AND SPECIAL

COURTS AND JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE SANDIGANBAYAN

Amended by A.M No. 01-8-10-SC (which took effect on October 1, 2001)

Sec. 1 provides that a case against a judge may be instituted either:

A. motu proprio by the Supreme Court or
B. upon a verified complaint, supported by affidavits of person who have
personal knowledge of the facts alleged therein or by documents which
may substantiate said allegations,
C. or upon an anonymous complaint, supported by public records of
indubitable integrity.

(In re: Anonymous complaint dated Feb. 18, 2005 of court personnel
against Judge Francisco Gedorio Jr. A.M. No. RTJ-05-1955, in this case the
court reiterates one of the modes of filling a complaint against a Judge)
Sec. 2 If the complaint is sufficient in form and in substance, the
respondent will be served a copy thereof, and he is required to answer
within 10 days from the receipt of such complaint.
Sec. 4 states that failure of the respondent to answer within 10 days from
receipt of the complaint, the investigation shall proceed ex parte.
Sec. 7 classifies the administrative charges as:

A. Serious Charges (Sec. 8)

1. Bribery, direct or indirect;

2. Dishonesty and violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices

Law (R.A. No. 3019);

(Where a lawyer, who later became a judge, notarized certain

documents as notary public while she is not yet commissioned as
notary public when she notarized the aforesaid documents. OCA
vs Judge Aguilar A.M. No. RTJ-07-2087)

Graciela May R. Pelagio

JD-401
 3. Gross misconduct constituting violations of the Code of Judicial
Conduct;

(Office of the Court Administrator v. Lopez, the Court defined

simple misconduct vis a vis Gross Immorality

Simple Misconduct Gross Immorality

"a transgression of some involves any of the additional
established and definite rule of elements of corruption, willful
action, more particularly, intent to violate the law, or to
unlawful behavior or gross disregard established rules, which
negligence by a public officer must be established by
substantial evidence

4. Knowingly rendering an unjust judgment or order as determined

by a competent court in an appropriate proceeding;

5. Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude;

(In the case of OCA vs Judge Ruiz A.M. No. RTJ-13-2361, where
respondent judge, who then was the City Mayor of Dapitan City,
had conspired with Police Pepe Nortal to facilitate the latter's
withdrawal of P1 million from the Confidential and Intelligence
Fund (CIF) and, thereafter, used this amount for his (the
respondent's) personal benefit was dismissed from service, and was
disbarred by the Supreme Court)

6. Willful failure to pay a just debt;

7. Borrowing money or property from lawyers and litigants in a case

pending before the court;

8. Immorality;

(Judge Ayson vs Judge Clarence Villanueva A.M. No. RTJ-05-1927,

the court dismissed the respondent for immorality when the he kept
his mistress and had 2 children with the latte despite the existence
of a valid marriage)

9. Gross ignorance of the law or procedure;

(In the case of Peralta vs Judge Omelio; Mendoza vs. Judge

Omelio A.M. No. RTJ-11-2259, the court dismissed a judge for issuing
orders and gross ignorance of the law)

10. Partisan political activities; and

11. Alcoholism and/or vicious habits.

Graciela May R. Pelagio

JD-401
 Sec. 11 (a) Provides for the penalty in cases of serious charges, vis:

1. Dismissal from Service

2. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than
three (3) but not exceeding six (6) months; or

3. A fine of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00

B. Less Serious Charges ( Sec. 9)

1. Undue delay in rendering a decision or order, or in transmitting

the records of a case;

(The Supreme Court, in the case of Judge Ralph Lee A.M. No. 06-3-
112 MeTC , admonished a judge who who left several cases
undecided when he assumed a higher position in the judiciary and
respondnets failure to state in his monthly report why the cases has
yet to be decided)

2. Frequently and unjustified absences without leave or habitual

tardiness;

3. Unauthorized practice of law;

4. Violation of Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars;

(In the case of OCA vs. Judge Larida, A.M. No. RTJ-08-2151
respondent has been found guilty of a less serious charge for not
complying with the directive of Administrative Circular No. 28-2008
to send an inventory of locally-funded employees to the Supreme
Court within one month from notice of the circular, and of allowing
locally funded employees to perform more than merely clerical
tasks; and of a light charge for unbecoming conduct for not
causing the investigation of the solicitations of commission from a
bonding company committed by three employees assigned to his
court.)

5. Receiving additional or double compensation unless specifically

authorized by law;

6. Untruthful statements in the certificate of service; and

7. Simple Misconduct.

(Simple misconduct as "a transgression of some established and

definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross
negligence by a public officer)

Sec. 11 (b) Provides for the penalty in cases of less serious

misconduct, to wit:

Graciela May R. Pelagio

JD-401
 1. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not
less than one (1) nor more than three (3) months; or

2. A fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00

C. Light Charges (Sec. 10)

1. Vulgar and unbecoming conduct;

2. Gambling in public;

3. Fraternizing with lawyers and litigants with pending case/cases in

his court; and

4. Undue delay in the submission of monthly reports

Sec. 11 (b) Provides for the penalty in cases of light charge, the
following penalty shall be imposed:

1. A fine of not less than P1,000.00 but not exceeding P10,000.00 and/or

2. Censure;

3. Reprimand;

4. Admonition with warning

Sec. 12 states that the proceedings shall be private and confidential but
the copy of the resolution shall be attached to the record of the
respondent in the Office of the Court Administrator

Graciela May R. Pelagio

JD-401