Extrajudicial activities

of judges /justices

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics

Arellano University School of Law – Arellano Law Foundation
2017-2018

1
 The previous “Canons of Judicial Ethics
and the Code of Judicial Conduct is a
supplement to the new Code
• “Canons of Judicial Ethics and the Code of Judicial
Conduct”, promulgated on 5 September 1989, shall take
effect on 20 October 1989
• This “New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine
Judiciary” shall take effect on the first day of June 2004
• This Code, which shall hereafter be referred to as the New
Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary,
supersedes the Canons of Judicial Ethics and the Code of
Judicial Conduct heretofore applied in the Philippines to
the extent that the provisions or concepts therein are
embodied in this Code: Provided, however, that in case of
deficiency or absence of specific provisions in this New
Code, the Canons of Judicial Ethics and the Code of Judicial
Conduct shall be applicable in a suppletory character.

2
 CANON 4
PROPRIETY
New Code of Judicial Conduct [2004]

• Propriety and the appearance of propriety are essential to

the performance of all the activities of a judge.

• SECTION 1. Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance

of impropriety in all of their activities.

• 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.

3
• SEC. 3. Judges shall, in their personal relations with
individual members of the legal profession who practice
regularly in their court, avoid situations which might
reasonably give rise to the suspicion or appearance of
favoritism or partiality.

• SEC. 4. Judges 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.

• 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.

4
• 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.

• SEC. 7. Judges shall inform themselves about their personal

fiduciary financial interests and shall make reasonable
efforts to be informed about the financial interests of
members of their family.

• SEC. 8. Judges 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.

5
• SEC. 9. Confidential information acquired by judges in their
judicial capacity shall not be used or disclosed by 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 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.

6
• 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.

7
• 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.

8
 Private practice of law prohibited
• Rule 138 RRC Sec. 35. Certain attorneys not to practice. -
No judge or other official or employee of the superior
courts or of the Office of the Solicitor General, shall
engage in private practice as a member of the bar or
give professional advice to clients.

• Canon 5, Rule 5.07 of the Code of Judicial Conduct states

that: A judge shall not engage in the private practice of
law. Unless prohibited by the Constitution or law, a judge
may engage in the practice of any other profession provided
that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict
with judicial functions.

9
 Why a judge cannot practice law

• These provisions are based on public policy for there is no

question that 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.
• It also aims to ensure that judges give their full time
and attention to their judicial duties, prevent them from
extending special favors to their own private interests
and assure the public of their impartiality in the
performance of their functions.
• These objectives are dictated by a sense of moral decency
and desire to promote the public interest. - Ziga v.
Judge Arejola, A.M. No. MTJ-99-1203. June 10, 2003

10
Drafting complainant’s affidavit is
practice of law
• Respondent acted as a lawyer for complainant and her father-in-
law when he drafted complainant’s affidavit which became the
basis of a complaint for estafa filed against Heidi Navarra.
• By acting as counsel for complainant and the latter’s father-
in-law in a case filed in his court, respondent compromised his
neutrality and independence. How could he then be expected to
decide with objectivity and fairness the cases in which he has
acted as a lawyer for the plaintiff or complainant?
• Respondent’s misconduct in this case is further compounded by
the fact that he rendered the legal services in question using
government facilities during office hours. - Biboso v.
Judge Villanueva, A.M. No. MTJ-01-1356. April 16, 2001

11
 Instances when a judge canserving as
executor, administrator, trustee,
guardian or other fiduciary
• As a general rule, a judge is prohibited from serving as
executor, administrator, trustee, guardian or other
fiduciary. The only exception is when the estate or trust
belongs to, or the ward is a member of his immediate
family, and only if his service as executor, administrator,
trustee, guardian or fiduciary will not interfere with
the proper performance of his judicial duties.

• The Code has defined who may be considered as members of his

immediate family and they are the spouse and relatives
within the second degree of consanguinity. – Carual v.
Brusola A.M. No. RTJ-99-1500. October 20, 1999

12
 “ Judge’s family”

• Includes a judge’s:
1. spouse,
2. son,
3. daughter,
4. son-in-law,
5. daughter-in-law, and
6. any other relative by consanguinity or affinity within the
sixth civil degree, or
7. person who is a companion or employee of the judge and
who lives in the judge’s household.

13
 Rendering legal opinion proscribed

• To escape our disciplining wrath, respondent judge argues that the

"resolution" he issued was a mere expression of his legal
opinion and not a judgment or order "which adjudicates and
settles rights and obligations of the parties." He said that the
petition for declaratory relief, earlier quoted, is not a pleading,
but a mere letter-request for a legal opinion. Hence,
complainant Gozun was not entitled to notice and hearing.
• Besides, even assuming arguendo that the resolution was a mere
legal opinion, still respondent must know that rendering of "legal
opinions" is not the function of a judge. The function of the
court is limited to adjudication of actual controversies involving
rights which are legally demandable or enforceable. Unlike lawyers,
judges cannot render legal advice. Judges are expressly prohibited
from engaging in the private practice of law or from giving
professional advice to clients. – Gozun v. Judge Liangco A.M.
No. MTJ-97-1136. August 30, 2000

14
 A judge who violates the judicial
code of conduct also violates the
lawyer’s oath
• We ruled that because membership in the bar is an integral
qualification for membership in the bench, the moral fitness
of a judge also reflects the latter’s moral fitness as a
lawyer. A judge who disobeys the basic rules of judicial
conduct also violates the lawyer’s oath. - OCA v. Atty.
Liangco, A. C. No. 5355 [2011]

15
 As attorney-in-fact in actual
litigations
• Except for the initiatory pleading, respondent Judge signed
the pleadings relative to the civil case and participated in
some of the hearings held relative thereto.
• The proscription against the private practice of law, or just
giving professional advice to clients, by Judges is based on
public policy.
• The prohibition applies equally well to the appointment of and
acceptance by judges to the post of attorney-in-fact in actual
litigations, a fact which is also, by and large, incompatible
with the high office, functions, prestige and privileges of a
judge. It is of no moment, albeit worse, that the case where
he accepts such designation as attorney-in-fact is one that
pends before his own court. - Sps. Gragera v. Judge
Francisco, A. M. No. RTJ-02-1670. June 26, 2003

16
 A.M. NO. 13-05-05-SC
RE: REVISION OF
RESTRICTIONS ON TEACHING HOURS OF
JUSTICES, JUDGES AND PERSONNEL OF THE JUDICIARY
EN BANC RESOLUTION DATED 01 APRIL 2014

1. Teaching shall be allowed for not more than ten (10) hours a
week. On regular working days (Monday through Friday),
teaching shall not be conducted earlier than 5:30 p.m.

2. An application for permission to teach if filed by a judge

shall be accompanied by a certification of the Clerk of
Court concerned regarding the condition of the court docket
showing:
(a) the number of pending cases; and
(b) the number of cases disposed of within a three-month
period prior to the start of the semester in his or her
respective sala.

17
 An application for permission to teach filed by
a
judge or justice shall require approval as
follows:
a. If filed by a judge from a lower level court, it shall be
subject to the approval of the executive judge concerned;

b. If filed by an executive judge, it shall be subject to the

approval of the Court Administrator;

c. If filed by an Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals,

the Sandiganbayan, or the Court of Tax Appeals, it shall be
subject to the approval of the presiding justice concerned;

d. If filed by the Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals,

the Sandiganbayan, or the Court of Tax Appeals, it shall be
subject to the approval of the Chief Justice.

18
 An application for permission to teach filed by
court personnel shall require approval as
follows
a. If filed by court personnel from a lower level court, it
shall be subject to the approval of the executive judge
concerned;
b. If filed by court personnel from the Court of Appeals, the
Sandiganbayan, or the Court of Tax Appeals, it shall be
subject to the approval of the presiding justice or the
executive justice concerned, as the case may be;
c. If filed by Supreme Court personnel belonging to a chamber of
an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, it shall be
subject to the approval of the Associate Justice concerned,
who will notify the Chief Justice and the Office of
Administrative Services, Supreme Court, of this approval;
d. If filed by other Supreme Court personnel, it shall be
subject to the approval of the Chief Justice.

19
 Disposition of applications

5. The approving authority may deny the application or allow

less than ten (10) hours of teaching a week, depending on
the applicant’s performance record.

6. At the end of every year, an approving authority shall

submit to the Chief Justice a report on the applications
submitted for the year and the respective status of, or
action taken on, each application.

20
 Failure to secure permit to teach

• To justify his failure to obtain a permit from the

Supreme Court, he said that the University of the East
did not require him to submit one.

• Respondent judge’s failure to accomplish the Request for

Permission to Teach form prescribed in Circular No. 50-97,
dated July 18, 1997 is inexcusable. It is a clear
violation of the judiciary rules and regulations, indicating
respondent judge’s disregard of the authority of the
Supreme Court. For no matter how insignificant or
inconsequential the circular may seem to respondent judge,
he should have complied with it. - Jabon v. Judge Sibanah E.
Usman, A.M. No. RTJ-02-1713 [2005]

21
Proper for judges to attend meetings
of members of the bar
• It is not necessary to the proper performance of judicial
duty that judges should live in retirement or seclusion; it
is desirable that, so far as the reasonable attention to
the completion of their work will permit, they continue to
mingle in social intercourse, and that they should not
discontinue their interests in or appearance at meetings
of members at the bar.

• A judge should, however, in pending or prospective

litigation before him be scrupulously careful to avoid such
action as may reasonably tend to waken the suspicion that his
social or business relations or friendships constitute an
element in determining his judicial course.’”- Abundo v.
Judge Manio, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-98-1416. August 6, 1999

22
 Judge eating lunch with counsel

• For respondent judge to eat lunch with counsel is not

wrong per se. The Canons, however, provides that as much as
possible he should be scrupulously careful to avoid any
suspicion that his social or business or friendly
relationship is an element in “determining his judicial
course.”

• Knowing that Atty. Verano, Jr., is counsel of the petitioner

in an annulment case pending before him, the respondent
judge should have thought twice about joining counsel
for lunch, especially in the courtroom at that. –
Pertierra v. Judge Lerma, A.M. No. RTJ-03-1799.
September 12, 2003

23
 Political activities of judges

• Allowed : A judge is entitled to entertain personal views on

political questions.

• Prohibited: But to avoid suspicion of political

partisanship:
1. a judge shall not make political speeches, 2. a
judge shall not contribute to party funds
3. a judge shall not publicly endorse candidates for
political office or participate in other partisan political
activities. - Rule 5.10, Canon 5, of the Code of Judicial
Conduct

24
 Engaging in partisan political
activity
improper under Civil Service Law
• Pres. Decree No. 807 (Civil Service Law) clearly states:

• Section 45. No officer or employee in the Civil Service

including members of the Armed Forces, shall engage directly
or indirectly in any partisan political activity or take
part in any election except to vote nor shall be use his
official authority or influence to coerce the political
activity of any other person or body. Nothing herein
provided shall be understood to prevent any officer or
employee from expressing his views on current political
problems or issues, or from mentioning the names of
candidates for public office whom he supports: ...

25
 Engaging in political activity

• Respondent started circulating handbills/letters addressed

to electoral constituents in the second district of Bulacan
indicating his intention to run for a congressional seat.

• For having held himself out as a congressional candidate

while still a member of the Bench, Respondent took
advantage of his position to boost his candidacy, demeaned
the stature of his office, and must be pronounced guilty of
gross misconduct. - Vistan v. Judge Nicolas A.M. No.
MTJ-87-79 [1991]

26
Filing of a certificate of candidacy

• When he was appointed as a judge, he took an oath to

uphold the law, yet in filing a certificate of candidacy
as a party-list representative in the May 1998 elections
without giving up his judicial post, Judge Limbona violated
not only the law, but the constitutional mandate that “no
officer or employee in the civil service shall engage
directly or indirectly, in any electioneering or
partisan political campaign.”

• The filing of a certificate of candidacy is a partisan

political activity as the candidate thereby offers himself
to the electorate for an elective post. - Limbona v. Judge
Limbona, A.M. No. SCC-98-4 March 22, 2011

27
 Limit of judge’s journalistic
writing
• Complainant alleged that respondent used his newspaper
column to ventilate his biases or personal anger at people
or institutions.

• Complainant believes that respondent judge should not

engage in active, sensational, and free-for-all
journalistic writing because such act degrades the judicial
system and compromises his impartiality as an administrator
of justice.

28
Con’t…

• Respondent’s writing of active and vicious editorials

compromises his duties as judge in the impartial
administration of justice, for his views printed on
newspapers reflect on his office as well as on the public
officers that he challenges.

• Not only does he act as its contributor or columnist, he

is also its publisher, editor and legal adviser.
Although the Code of Judicial Conduct allows a judge to
engage in certain lawful activities, they should not
interfere with the performance of judicial duties nor
detract from the dignity of the court. - Galang v. Judge
Santos G.R. No. MTJ-99-1197 [1999]

29
 Judge cannot be appointed to
executive position in any enterprise
• Circular No. 6 dated April 10, 1987 strictly enjoins all
Judges, Clerks of Court and Sheriffs not to accept the
position of director or any other position in any
electric cooperative or other enterprises, or to resign
immediately from such position if they are already holding
the same so as not to prejudice the expeditious and proper
administration of justice.
• In violation of this circular, Judge Estrada, who was
appointed to the judiciary on May 17, 1994, did not resign
from the Board of Directors of the Rural Bank of Labrador
until May 31, 1997. - Re: Inhibition of Judge
Bienvenido R. Estrada A.M. No. 98-1-32-RTC July 29,
1998

30
 Judge should not accept any position in
any business enterprise
• RULE 5.01 - A judge may engage in the following activities
provided that they do not interfere with the performance of
judicial duties or detract from the dignity of the court:
xxx
(d) serve as an officer, director, trustee, or non-legal
advisor of a non-profit or non-political educational,
religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization.

• RULE 5.03 - Subject to the provisions of the proceeding rule,

a judge may hold and manage investments but should not
serve as officer, director, manager or advisor, or employee
of any business except as director of a family business
of the judge. - Canons of Judicial Ethics and the Code of
Judicial Conduct

31
 Not good for judges to engage in
business
• Indeed, it is not good for judges to engage in business
except only to the extent allowed by Rule 5.03 of the
Code of Judicial Conduct which provides:

Subject to the provisions of the preceding rule, a judge may

hold and manage investments but should not serve as an
officer, director, manager, advisor, or employee of any
business except as director of a family business of the
judge.
- Berin and Alorro v. Judge Barte A.M. No. MTJ-02-1443.
July 31, 2002

32
Limits of financial and business dealings

• Refrain from financial and business dealings that tend to:

1. reflect adversely on the court’s impartiality,

2. interfere with the proper performance of judicial
activities, or
3. increase involvement with lawyers or persons likely to come
before the court.
- Berin and Alorro v. Judge Barte A.M. No. MTJ-02-1443. July
31, 2002 citing Rule 5.02 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics
and the Code of Judicial Conduct

33
 Act of writing a letter to opposing
counsel and defending a right amounts to
private practice of law
• We also find merit in complainant's contention that respondent's
act of writing to Atty. Cargullo and defending the right of Andres
Bo to possess the lot in dispute amounts to private practice of
law.

• The tenor of the letter shows that respondent, as representative of

Andres Bo, was defending the latter's rights over the disputed
property. Respondent's act of representing and defending the
interest of a private individual in the disputed property
constitutes private practice of law. It has been ruled that "the
practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court or
participation in court proceedings but also includes preparation of
pleadings or papers in anticipation of a litigation, giving advice
to clients or persons needing the same, etc. - Carual v. Brusola
A.M. No. RTJ-99-1500. October 20, 1999

34
 As agent in the sale of the subject
property

• By allowing himself to act as agent in the sale of the

subject property, respondent judge has increased the
possibility of his disqualification to act as an
impartial judge in the event that a dispute involving
the said contract of sale arises.
• Also, the possibility that the parties to the sale might
plead before his court is not remote and his business
dealings with them might not only create suspicion as to his
fairness but also to his ability to render it in a manner
that is free from any suspicion as to its fairness and
impartiality and also as to the judge’s integrity. -
Rosauro v. Judge Kallos A.M. No. RTJ-03-1796 February 10,
2006

35
 Financial and business dealings
• Judge can engage in financial and business dealings provide:

1. such will not reflect adversely on the court’s impartiality.

2. will not interfere with the proper performance of judicial

activities.

3. will not increase involvement with lawyers or persons likely

to come before the court.

• A judge should so manage investments and other financial

interests as to minimize the number of cases giving grounds
for disqualification. - Catbagan v. Judge Barte, A.M. No.
MTJ-02-1452. April 06, 2005

36
 Sheer presence - as a member of the
Judiciary - would be sufficient
suggestion of persuasion and influence
• As a member of the bench, the respondent judge should
realize that his presence, opinion and participation in
any proceeding could slant the evaluation and resolution of
the case in favor of (the) party he identifies himself with.
A judge need not utter any word for his sheer presence - as
a member of the Judiciary - would be sufficient suggestion
of persuasion and influence.
• In this case, the respondent judge's presence and
participation in the proceedings were to the advantage
of his relatives, the heirs of Dr. Cosme T. Valdez, Sr.
That his efforts failed to influence the DARAB, for the
motion filed by the Valdez heirs in DARAB Case No. 282-T-93
for contempt was dismissed, has no relevance. - Garcia,
et. al. v. Judge Valdez, A.M. No. MTJ-98-1156 [1998]

37
 Giving moral support to a family member
by attending the hearing is improper
• Judge Dojillo admitted that he was present during the
mentioned hearings but explained that he did not sit
beside his brother’s lawyer but in the area reserved
for the public; and that the main reason why he was
there was to observe how election protests are
conducted as he has never conducted one. His other
reason was to give moral support to his brother. - Vidal
v. Judge Dojillo, Jr. A.M. No. MTJ-05-1591 [2005]

38
 Objection from complainant or counsel is
immaterial
• Although concern for family members is deeply ingrained in the
Filipino culture, respondent, being a judge, should bear in mind
that he is also called upon to serve the higher interest of
preserving the integrity of the entire judiciary.

• The fact that neither complainant nor his counsel objected to

the presence of respondent during the hearing is immaterial. -
Vidal v. Judge Dojillo, Jr. A.M. No. MTJ-05-1591 [2005]

39
 Use of letterhead by a judge

• In other words, the respondent Judge’s transgression was

not per se in the use of the letterhead, but in not being
very careful and discerning in considering the circumstances
surrounding the use of his letterhead and his title. -
Ladignon v. Judge Garong, A.M. No. MTJ-08-1712 [2008]

• Hence, respondent judge’s use of the court heading outside

of judicial business warrants disciplinary action for
violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct particularly
Section 1, Canon 4.

40
 Use of ordinary bond papers and placing
his official station as return address
• The Judge’s claim that he used an ordinary bond papers
and placed thereon his official station as return address
is not totally without merit.

• For, indeed, this is not an unusual practice and it would be

hypocritical to deny its occurrence at all levels of the
Judiciary. For example, some members of the Judiciary may
use a social card with the letterhead of their office
to indicate their address as well as their station
within the judicial hierarchy; some also use notepads
bearing their names, designation and station. -
Ladignon v. Judge Garong, A.M. No. MTJ-08-1712 [2008]

41
 Use of court’s stationery

• The Court also finds respondent Judge liable for violating

Rule 2.03 of the Code in using official stationery for his
correspondence with complainant and the latter’s counsel
regarding Lot No. 1470. A court’s stationery, with its
official letterhead, should only be used for official
correspondence. By using his sala’s stationery other than
for official purposes, respondent Judge evidently used the
prestige of his office to benefit Guererro (and himself) in
violation of Rule 2.0322 of the Code. - Rosauro v. Judge
Kallos A.M. No. RTJ-03-1796 February 10, 2006

• Respondent Judge should know that a court’s letterhead should

be used only for official correspondence. - Oktubre v.
Judge Velasco A.M. No. MTJ 02-1444. July 22, 2004

42
Judge required tenants to pay at MTC

• Respondent Judge aggravates his liability when, in his

letters to the tenants, he further required them to pay
their rent at the MTC Maasin, although he was then
staying at the Paler building.
• By these calculated steps, respondent Judge in the words of
Rule 2.03, clearly intended to “use the prestige of his
judicial office” to advance the interest of his
maternal co-heirs. – Oktubre v. Judge Velasco A.M. No.
MTJ 02-1444. July 22, 2004

43
 Social Networking activities
• The complainant likewise filed a supplemental
complaint dated April 14, 2008 where he alleged that the
respondent committed an act of impropriety when she
displayed her photographs in a social networking website
called "Friendster" and posted her personal details as an
RTC Judge, allegedly for the purpose of finding a compatible
partner. She also posed with her upper body barely covered
by a shawl, allegedly suggesting that nothing was worn
underneath except probably a brassiere.

44
 ……
• We are not unaware of the increasing prevalence of social
networking sites in the Internet – a new medium through
which more and more Filipinos communicate with each other.
While judges are not prohibited from becoming members of and
from taking part in social networking activities, we remind
them that they do not thereby 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. It is in this light
that we judge the respondent in the charge of impropriety
when she posted her pictures in a manner viewable by the
public.

45
 ……
• Lest this rule be misunderstood, the New Code of Judicial
Conduct does not prohibit a judge from joining or
maintaining an account in a social networking site such as
Friendster. Section 6, Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial
Conduct recognizes that judges, like any other citizen, are
entitled to freedom of expression. This right "includes the
freedom to hold opinions without interference and impart
information and ideas through any media regardless of
frontiers." Joining a social networking site is an exercise
of one’s freedom of expression. The respondent judge’s act
of joining Friendster is, therefore, per se not violative of
the New Code of Judicial Conduct.

46
 ……
• To restate the rule: in communicating and socializing through
social networks, judges must bear in mind that what they
communicate – regardless of whether it is a personal matter or part
of his or her judicial duties – creates and contributes to the
people’s opinion not just of the judge but of the entire Judiciary
of which he or she is a part. This is especially true when the
posts the judge makes are viewable not only by his or her family
and close friends, but by acquaintances and the general public.
• Thus, it may be acceptable for the respondent to show a picture of
herself in the attire she wore to her family and close friends, but
when she made this picture available for public consumption, she
placed herself in a situation where she, and the status she holds
as a judge, may be the object of the public’s criticism and
ridicule. The nature of cyber communications, particularly its
speedy and wide-scale character, renders this rule necessary.

47
 ……
• We are not also unaware that the respondent’s act of
posting her photos would seem harmless and inoffensive had
this act been done by an ordinary member of the public. As
the visible personification of law and justice, however,
judges are held to higher standards of conduct and thus must
accordingly comport themselves. - Lorenzana v. Judge
Austria, A.M. No. RTJ-09-2200 April 2, 2014 (formerly
OCA I.P.I. No. 08-2834-RTJ)

48
Thank you for your
attention!!

49