Legal and Judicial Ethics Midterms Transcript 20131
-
Upload
andrew-t-macapobre -
Category
Documents
-
view
219 -
download
0
Transcript of Legal and Judicial Ethics Midterms Transcript 20131
-
7/25/2019 Legal and Judicial Ethics Midterms Transcript 20131
1/81
Problem Areas in Legal Ethics Midterms, 2013)
EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PALE team
Abejero, Aguilar, Bautista, Dacay, Go, Lim, Llanera, Marquez, Ocupe, Pelayo
1
JUDICIAL ETHICS
Definition of Terms
Ethics the discipline dealing with what is good and bad, or right and
wrong.
When do we consider something as right or good?
- If it conforms to what he or she ought to do. Ethics then presupposes
a standard to be followed.
Legal Ethics the science treating of what an attorney ought to do in
relation to the court, to his client, to his colleagues, and to the public.
Judicial Ethicsthe branch of moral science which treats of the right andproper conduct to be observed by judges in administering justice.
It is a legal and moral mechanism that keeps and maintains the
trust and confidence of the people in the judicial system.
Why is judicial ethics important to lawyers? Why study it?
- The administration of justice is a partnership between the lawyer and
the judge. It is a joint responsibility of both the judge and the lawyer. If
the judge expects the lawyer to do his part well, there is also a
corollary and equal duty on the part of the judge to exert his utmosteffort in the dispensation of justice. So real administration of justice
could only be accomplished if both the lawyer and the judge are aware
of the corresponding ethical obligations of the other. Only in this
manner can each of them minimize occasions for delinquency; and
consequently, help attain the ends of justice. What good is it if all
lawyers are ethical if the judges are not? So it is a mission for both
lawyers and judges.
A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC Adopting the NEW CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT for
the Philippine Judiciary - Took effect June 1, 2004
Why did the SC promulgate a new code?
-
To manifest the Philippines solidarity with the universal clamor for a
universal declaration of judicial ethics.
xxx (4th
whereas)
WHEREAS, the adoption of the universal declaration of standards for
ethical conduct of judges embodied in the Bangalore Draft as revised at
the Round Table Conference of Chief Justices at The Hague is imperative
not only to update and correlate the Code of Judicial Conduct and the
Canons of Judicial Ethics adopted for the Philippines, but also to stress
the Philippines solidarity with the universal clamor for a universal code
of judicial ethics.
Xxx
This universal declaration is contained in what we call the Bangalore Draft,
which in turn contains the universal declaration of judicial ethical
standards.
WHEREAS, at the Round Table Meeting of Chief Justices held at the Peace
Palace, The Hague, on 25-26 November 2002, at which the Philippine
Supreme Court was represented by the Chief Justice (Hilario Davide) and
Associate Justice Reynato S. Puno, the Bangalore Draft of the Code of
Judicial Conduct adopted by the Judicial Group on Strengthening Judicial
Integrity was deliberated upon and approved after incorporating therein
http://en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php?title=Supreme_Court_of_the_Philippineshttp://en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php?title=Supreme_Court_of_the_Philippineshttp://en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php?title=Chief_Justice_of_the_Philippineshttp://en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php?title=Reynato_S._Punohttp://en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php?title=Reynato_S._Punohttp://en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php?title=Chief_Justice_of_the_Philippineshttp://en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php?title=Supreme_Court_of_the_Philippineshttp://en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php?title=Supreme_Court_of_the_Philippineshttp://en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php?title=Supreme_Court_of_the_Philippines -
7/25/2019 Legal and Judicial Ethics Midterms Transcript 20131
2/81
Problem Areas in Legal Ethics Midterms, 2013)
EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PALE team
Abejero, Aguilar, Bautista, Dacay, Go, Lim, Llanera, Marquez, Ocupe, Pelayo
2
several amendments;
WHEREAS, the Bangalore Draft, as amended, is intended to be the
Universal Declaration of Judicial Standards applicable in all judiciaries;
WHEREAS, the Bangalore Draft is founded upon a universal recognition
that a competent, independent and impartial judiciary is essential if the
courts are to fulfill their role in upholding constitutionalism and the rule of
law; that public confidence in the judicial system and in the moral authority
and integrity of the judiciary is of utmost importance in a modern
democratic society; and that it is essential that judges, individually and
collectively, respect and honor judicial office as a public trust and strive to
enhance and maintain confidence in the judicial system;
xxx (4th
whereas)
NOW, THEREFORE, the Court hereby adopts this New Code of Judicial
Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary.
Does the new code supersede or overturn the old code?
- NO. It only correlates the existing judicial ethics rules. It adds some
new sections also not found in the old code.
-
The preamble of the Old Code says, An honorable competent andindependent judiciary exists to administer justice and thus promote
the unity of the country, the stability of government, and the well-
being of the people.
- The New Code of Conduct will update and correlate the Code
of Judicial Conduct and the Canons of Judicial Ethics. So we
have the Code of Judicial Conduct, we also have the even
earlier form of ethical rule that is the Canons of Judicial
Ethics. All these are not overturned by the new code. The
new code only updates and correlates the existing laws on
ethics.
In the new code, there are seven cardinal values that every judge should
possess. And these are embodied in six canons.
7 Cardinal Values
1. Independence
2. Integrity
3. Impartiality
4. Propriety
5. Equality
6. Competence
7.
Diligence
CANON 1: INDEPENDENCE
Judicial independence is a pre-requisite to the rule of law and a
fundamental guarantee of a fa ir t rial. A jud ge shall therefore uphold and
exemplify judicial independence in both its individual and institutional
aspects.
That is how importance judicial independence is. Without it, there could be
no fair trial.
-
7/25/2019 Legal and Judicial Ethics Midterms Transcript 20131
3/81
Problem Areas in Legal Ethics Midterms, 2013)
EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PALE team
Abejero, Aguilar, Bautista, Dacay, Go, Lim, Llanera, Marquez, Ocupe, Pelayo
3
Two aspects of judicial Independence
1. Individual Judicial Independence
- focuses on the particular judge and seeks to ensure his or her
ability to decide cases with autonomy. The judge himself as a
person must be independent.
2. Institutional Judicial Independence
- focuses on the independence of the judiciary as a branch of
government. So the judiciary as an institution must be
independent also.
Both are important. You cannot choose one. So when you say
independence of the judiciary, you refer to individual and institutional
judicial independence.
SECTION 1.Judges shall exercise the 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.
Simply put, how should judges decide?
- Based merely on the facts of the case and the law applicable to the
facts of the case. If a judge decides a case because of extraneous
factors, then there is no independence.
Two possible sources of influence:
1. Internal Source
- Comes from the biases, prejudices, or preconceived notions of the
judge.
Example: There is a judge in a criminal case that sees to it that he
must look at the body of the accused, and see if there are tattoos.
If there are tattoos, the judge would think that that person is
guilty. So the judge is influenced by his prejudices.
2. External Source
- Comes from outside the judge. Political, social, familial, etc.
-
The judge is being pressured by the governor, or family members,
or relatives.
- Judge dismissed a case based on vague grounds upon his receipt
of death threats. That is not allowed. Judges must be
independent.
How to measure independence
- The judge must only decide cases based on the facts and the law and
not on some other source of influence.
Ramirez v. Corpus-Macandog
The judge here admitted that she rendered rulings based upon the
directives of a government official. In her defense, she said it was a
revolutionary government, and therefore, she found it fit to succumb to
the pressure of the government official.
-
7/25/2019 Legal and Judicial Ethics Midterms Transcript 20131
4/81
Problem Areas in Legal Ethics Midterms, 2013)
EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PALE team
Abejero, Aguilar, Bautista, Dacay, Go, Lim, Llanera, Marquez, Ocupe, Pelayo
4
SC denounced the judges act and said that it was a patent betrayal of
public trust and a revelation of her weak moral character. Thus, judges
should not allow public officials, local or national, to influence their
decisions and actions in judicial proceedings before them.
Libarios v. Dabalos
There is a rally conducted outside the courtroom. The rally was conducted
by the supporters of the complainant. Because of that rally, the judge was
overwhelmed. So the judge issued a warrant of arrest and fixed the bail of
the accused without the required hearing.
SC said that there was unjustified haste in the actions of the judge. A judge
must diligently ascertain the facts and applicable law, unswayed by
partisan or personal interest. So it was very clear here that the judge acted
in that way because of the rally conducted outside.
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.
The judiciary could be a very close knit brotherhood. But regardless of the
close relations, the camaraderie and compaerismo, judges must make
sure that they remain independent from their judicial colleagues.
In collegiate courts, lets say CA, 19th
division, and 1 division is composed of
3 justices. They have to decide in division.
Are these 3 justices still independent from one another?
- YES. They still retain their independence from the other justice. Even
in collegiate courts, this still applies.
- Justices, even in the same division, are free to dissent if they do not
agree with the majority opinion.
SECTION 3. Judges shall refrain from influencing in any manner the
outcome of litigation or dispute pending before another court or
administrative agency.
If judges must be independent from their colleagues, they should not also
wield influence on their judicial colleagues. You extend not just to other
judicial colleagues but also other administrative or quasi-judicial bodies.
In a bar exam question, the judge wrote to the NLRC commissioner:
Dear NLRC, my wife is a party in a case before you. This letter is to inform
you that everything my wife said in her affidavits and pleadings are
untrue.
In other words, that the judge is telling them not to believe his wife.
Reason of the judge was that he was merely interested in upholding the
truth? Ethical or unethical?
- Unethical. Even if it is for a noble purpose, still it constituted influence
upon a quasi-judicial tribunal.
-
7/25/2019 Legal and Judicial Ethics Midterms Transcript 20131
5/81
Problem Areas in Legal Ethics Midterms, 2013)
EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PALE team
Abejero, Aguilar, Bautista, Dacay, Go, Lim, Llanera, Marquez, Ocupe, Pelayo
5
CASE
The judge entered his appearance in a court case representing himself,
signing the pleading wherein he indicated that he is the presiding judge of
RTC branch x and then appending to the pleading a copy of his oath of
office with a picture of his oath taking.
SC: Unethical. This was intended to put pressure on the fellow judge.
SECTION 4. Judges shall not allow family, social, or other relationship to
influence judicial conduct or judgment. The prestige of judicial office shall
not be used or lent to advance the private interests of others, nor convey or
permit others to convey the impression that they are in a sp ecial position to
influence the judge.
The position of the judge is very delicate. The judge may not be aware that
the people whom he trusts could already be selling him, without him
knowing it.
Example:
Close associates, or even family members, might say, give me 50k and youwill win the case before my uncle judge. But in reality that nephew or niece
already knew the decision beforehand because when he visited his uncle
judge, he saw in the table the draft decision. The nephew already knew
that he would win. So taking the opportunity to earn money, he went to
that party about to win and asked 50k.
So, the judge must be able to safeguard himself from influence peddling
people. Especially those close to him, especially those people that he trust.
Section 4 reminds judges of this danger and so they should do their best
not to let their public office advance the private interests of others.
Judges family includes a judges spouse, son, daughter, son-in-law,
daughter-in-law, and any other relative by consanguinity or affinity within
the sixth civil degree, or person who is a companion or employee of the
judge and who lives in the judges household.
So this section discourages influence peddling by members of the judges
inner circle.
Judges should brace themselves knowing that by their assumption to
judicial office, people close to them might in the future seek favors or
intend to influence them. Judges should be prepared to handle these
situations and must be ready to maintain their independence in the midst
of all these external influences.
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.
All throughout the Code, there is a similar theme: the actual possession of
the quality of the judge is just as important as the appearance. So,
APPEARANCE is just as important as the actual quality itself.
Example: Judges must not only be independent, but must also appear to
be independent.
-
7/25/2019 Legal and Judicial Ethics Midterms Transcript 20131
6/81
Problem Areas in Legal Ethics Midterms, 2013)
EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PALE team
Abejero, Aguilar, Bautista, Dacay, Go, Lim, Llanera, Marquez, Ocupe, Pelayo
6
Even the appearance of impropriety, even when there is no proof of actual
impropriety, it is already ethically actionable.
It could be very difficult for the judge to remain independent from the
two other departments. How?
a. The president, executive branch, appoints judges.
b. The Congress, legislative branch, enacts the budget through the
appropriations law.
So it could be very tempting on the part of the judge to have inappropriate
connections because of the beneficence it could have received from the
other two branches. Lets say you are appointed as a judge by PNoy. So to
the mind of the judge, PNoy is the best president ever. Unconsciously, the
judge, because of that mindframe, might tend to favor not just the
president but even the allies of the president in cases before him. Just one
call from the president. So, INAPPROPRIATE CONNECTIONS are not
allowed. This is a very tall order but this is very important to obtain justice.
Allowance from the LGUs this is a very hot topic. Judges receive
allowance from LGUs. CA justices for instance, they receive allowance from
the City of Cebu, 45k, and from the Province, 15k, in addition to salaries
and the usual allowances given to the judges by the SC. So why is this a hot
topic?
c. Judges receive allowances from LGUs. LGUs could be parties to a
case before the judge. The other party will now entertain a
reasonable suspicion of the impartiality of the judge. And
subsequently, the other party loses. Even if there is no actual bias,
there is the appearance of bias. That is the criticism of the
practice of receiving allowances from LGUs, but this is allowed.
Regardless of all the criticisms and protests against it, it is allowed
because judges, if they are really to rely on the budget coming
from the SC, the SC could not afford to give those amounts to
judges and justices. And these amounts are, according to the SC,commensurate to the stature and to the hazards that go with the
work of the judge.
As long as judges remain to be guided by section 5 and they remain free
from appropriate connections with the LGU giving allowances to them,
there would be no ethical violation.
CASES
1. Judge makes it a point to invite Sanggunian members to his chamber
for a quick chat before he begins the hearing for that day.
2. Judge referred the matter of transfer of court employees to the vice
mayor. That is improper because any personnel action under the
judiciary falls under the administrative jurisdiction of the court
administrator. The judge should not have referred it to the vice mayor.
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 toadjudicate.
Judges are independent in relation to society, but not really withdrawal
from society. Judges are not required to be hermits and not have friends.
-
7/25/2019 Legal and Judicial Ethics Midterms Transcript 20131
7/81
Problem Areas in Legal Ethics Midterms, 2013)
EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PALE team
Abejero, Aguilar, Bautista, Dacay, Go, Lim, Llanera, Marquez, Ocupe, Pelayo
7
Judges are not required to live in seclusion for as long as they are
independent from society.
The more important portion here is independence in relation to the
particular parties to a dispute which he or she has to adjudicate.
Ethical violation: Judge was found to have used the service vehicle of a
party for one year for free.
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 independen ce.
There is a high level of intellectual, as well as moral fitness that judges
must comply with because the judges are the visible representations of the
law and of the judiciary.
Judge was disciplined for always getting drunk at parties. SC said it is very
improper behavior on the part of the judge.
___________________________________________________________
CANON 2: INTEGRITY
Integrity is essential not only to the proper discharge of the judicial office
but also to the personal demeanor of judges.
When you say integrity, you really cannot separate the judge as a judge,
and the judge as a person. Integrity has to be taken in its entirety. So the
judge must not only be a good judge, but must also be a good person.
When applying for judgeship or promotion in the judiciary, there is the
duty to disclose all disciplinary, criminal and civil cases. Many judges have
been suspended, or dismissed from the judiciary because of the failure to
disclose pending cases.
SECTION 1. Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above
reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in view of a reasonable observer.
Again, appearance is just as important. Judges have been disciplined for
lack of good moral character, both in their private and public capacities.
Some prohibited acts:
1. Accepting bribes
2. Going to casinos and cockpits
3. Delay in rendering decisions
4. Ignorance of the law
5. Voyeurism
-
7/25/2019 Legal and Judicial Ethics Midterms Transcript 20131
8/81
Problem Areas in Legal Ethics Midterms, 2013)
EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PALE team
Abejero, Aguilar, Bautista, Dacay, Go, Lim, Llanera, Marquez, Ocupe, Pelayo
8
Gambling case
In a case, the judge said, Yes, I was at the casino but I just accompanied
my wife, it was my wife who played the slot machines, I just watched.
Still disciplined by the SC. If judges would go to casinos or cockpits, the
person who sees him would think that the judge is gambling. Even if
casinos are regulated forms of gambling, judges are still not allowed to go
there. That person looking at the judge, would think that the judge is a
gambler, and then unwittingly in his mind, that person is doing
mathematics, how much is the judges salary, etc. How can he afford this
very expensive vice?Then another thought forms, this judge is like this
or like that. There is ethical violation, the appearance of impropriety is
enough.
Ignorance of the lawobviously, this shows incompetence. But there are
also instances where in addition to lack of competence, it could also mean
lack of integrity.
When would it indicate lack of integrity?
If the law involved is basic and elementary, it is inconceivable that the
judge did not know that law. Therefore, the judge is either too
incompetent or undeserving of the title he holds, or he is too vicious thatthe oversight was deliberately done, resulting to a travesty of justice.
Examples:
1. The judges application of the indeterminate sentence law was
inaccurate. In many decisions, he always misapplied the ISL. So the SC
said that this is very basic and elementary. He is not just incompetent,
he also lacks integrity.
2. The judge ordered the imprisonment of the lawyer of the accused,
because the lawyer did not appear at the time of the promulgation of
judgment. Can you imprison the lawyer? No. Its very basic.
SECTION 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.
You might think that the most important part of the judges task is to
render fair decisions. But that is not the only important thing. Equally
important is the PROCESS reaching that decision. The parties might still
entertain the idea that the judge is biased or prejudiced because there
seems to be no fairness in the process.
Upon his assumption to office, a judge ceases to become an ordinary
mortal. He becomes the visible representation of the law, and more
importantly, of justice. He must, therefore, become the embodiment of
competence, integrity and independence.
Basic policy:the judges conduct in his private and public life can always be
subjected to scrutiny.
-
7/25/2019 Legal and Judicial Ethics Midterms Transcript 20131
9/81
Problem Areas in Legal Ethics Midterms, 2013)
EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PALE team
Abejero, Aguilar, Bautista, Dacay, Go, Lim, Llanera, Marquez, Ocupe, Pelayo
9
CASES:
1. Judge forcibly kissed court employees.
2. Judge punched another judge in the face after a disagreement over
the use of an office table.
3. Having sexual intercourse with a 15-year old
4. Judge held to be devoid of any integrity.
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.
So the judge should police the justice system. If the judge learns of some
abuses committed by court personnel, the judge must not hesitate to
undertake the necessary investigative or administrative action. Same thing
for lawyers, if the judge learns that the lawyer engages in unethical or
illegal courses of action, it is incumbent upon the judge to expose said
lawyer. The judges owe it to the administration of justice, to be vigilant not
just on themselves but also on the other participants in the justice system.
__________________________________________________________
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.
A judge should not only render a just, correct and impartial decision but
should do so in such a manner as to be free from any suspicion as to its
fairness and impartiality and as to its integrity.
Although the senator-judges are not really members of the judiciary, a very
good example would come to mind. But you recall some senator-judges
who may have acted in such a way that their impartiality may be
questioned?
What good is a fair and impartial decision if the process did not seem fair?
The judge may be seen to be too friendly to the defense, and too hostile to
the prosecution. Lets say there is nothing wrong with the decision , it is
perfect, still the same, it is tainted with doubts and suspicions as to the
fairness of the judge. So judges must not only concern themselves of the
final product of the case which is the decision. Everything, all the
proceedings that lead to the decision must be fair, and must appear to be
fair in the eyes of the reasonable observer. Even the appearance of
impartiality is enough to discipline the judge.
EXTRAJDUCIAL SOURCE RULE
this is the standard used to know whether the judge is partial or not. To
sustain a claim of bias or prejudice, the resolution or opinion or decision of
the court must be based upon an extrajudicial source, that is, some
-
7/25/2019 Legal and Judicial Ethics Midterms Transcript 20131
10/81
Problem Areas in Legal Ethics Midterms, 2013)
EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PALE team
Abejero, Aguilar, Bautista, Dacay, Go, Lim, Llanera, Marquez, Ocupe, Pelayo
10
influence other than the facts and the law presented in the courtroom. So
this is the gauge to measure if there is fairness.
SECTION 1.Judges shall perform their judicial duties without favor, bias, or
prejudice.
What is required of judges is objectivity. An independent judiciary does not
mean that judges can resolve specific disputes entirely as they please.
There are limits to judges adjudication. They cannot innovate at pleasure.
A judge is not a knight-errant, roaming at will in pursuit of his own ideal of
beauty or goodness. He is not to yield to spasmodic sentiment, to vague
and unregulated benevolence.
It is not uncommon among lawyer circles that some judges tend to develop
a reputation. Some judges are known to be biased in favor of children in
child abuse cases, or this judge has a reputation to be tender to the rights
of the accused, etc.
Judges are reminded not to let their personal biases, their personal
convictions, their ideals of goodness, clout their judgment. There are limits
to how they adjudicate. And they must adjudicate according to the facts
and law, and not for some other reasons. Otherwise, there is a tendencythat the lawyers will talk, and wittingly or unwittingly, the judge finds
himself with a reputation.
And although a speedy determination of an action implies a speedy trial,
speed is not the chief objective of a trial.
SECTION 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 a nd of the judiciary.
What is it to be like Caesars wife? Judges are said to be like Caesars wife,
meaning, they should be above reproach and beyond suspicion. Its not
easy to be a judge.
Examples:
1. Having lunch with a litigant
2. Standing as a sponsor in a litigants sons wedding
3. Using the car of the litigant as a service vehicle
4.
Undue interference in the direct and cross examination of
witnesses judges can ask questions for as long as the questions
are clarificatory only. But if the judge went to the extent of cross-
examining the defense witnesses for instance, what will the other
party think? The judge is now taking the cudgels for the
prosecution, and therefore, the cold neutrality of an impartial
judge is destroyed. There is no more perception of cold neutrality.
So clarificatory questioning only, but not to the extent of
examining witnesses.
5.
A judges inebriated behavior and intolerant behavior during
parties are reprehensible. A judge who yields to the strength of
the spirits and acts like an uninhibited drunkard in a public place,
demeans his judicial office, strips himself of his dignity of his man,
and disrobes the court of the respect of the people it serves.
-
7/25/2019 Legal and Judicial Ethics Midterms Transcript 20131
11/81
Problem Areas in Legal Ethics Midterms, 2013)
EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PALE team
Abejero, Aguilar, Bautista, Dacay, Go, Lim, Llanera, Marquez, Ocupe, Pelayo
11
SECTION 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.
Thats the primary function of a judge, to hear and decide cases. That
being the primary duty of a judge, the judge must make sure that he will
minimize occasions that he will have to disqualify himself from hearing
cases. So judges are required to regulate their business activities, their
social connections, with the end view of minimizing their disqualification in
cases before them.
Dionisio v. Escao
A judge should abstain from making personal investments in enterprises
which are actually involved in litigation in his court, and after admission to
the bench, he should not retain such investments previously made longer
than a period sufficient to enable him to dispose of them without serious
loss.
Scenario
You are a judge, and you are thinking of opening a business. Would it bewise and ethical for you to open a surety bonding company which is
connected to your profession?
- No. the judge should stay away from such investments.
If prior to appointment as a judge, the judge is an employee, a manager of
a surety bonding company, what should the judge do?
- Resign as a manager. There is obvious conflict of interest. And
because of his position as manager, there is more probability that
he will come in contact with persons who will go to him as judge.
What if he is the owner of the surety bonding company, and then he is
appointed as judge thereafter, what should the judge do?
- Divest. He should not retain such investments previously made
longer than a period sufficient to enable him to dispose of them
without serious loss. There should be a divestment of interests
and shareholdings if there is conflict of interest as provided under
RA 6713.
Reasonable time RA 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for
Public Officials and Employees), Section 9
- If there is conflict of interest, the public official must resign from the
position in any private enterprise within 30 DAYS from assumption of
office.
- If not just mere employment, like you are the owner, then the second
one applies to you, you divest from shareholdings or interest within 60
DAYS from assumption of office.
CASE
1. The judge acted as broker together with the complainant in the sale of
lots to the Church of Jesus Christ xxx.
SC: 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.
-
7/25/2019 Legal and Judicial Ethics Midterms Transcript 20131
12/81
Problem Areas in Legal Ethics Midterms, 2013)
EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PALE team
Abejero, Aguilar, Bautista, Dacay, Go, Lim, Llanera, Marquez, Ocupe, Pelayo
12
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 suspicions as to his fairness, but also as 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 judges integrity.
So judges must regulate their business activities, in a way that it will not
severely affect their competency, their qualification to hear the case.
2. There is another case involving an MCTC judge in a very remote
locality. Still the same he is also realtor in addition to being a judge. As
a realtor, obviously he dealt with properties, anywhere in the
Philippines, including properties within his territorial jurisdiction.
That practice was questioned because what if those transactions over
real properties figured in cases filed before him, his impartiality will
now be questioned because he intervened as realtor, as the agent or
broker in the transaction. Another difficulty is because it was a circuit
trial court in a very remote locality, he is the only judge there, he could
not easily inhibit because there is no other judge to take the case.
He was reprimanded by the SC, even if his reasons may be sound. He
said that he was sending children to school using the income he is
earning from his dealings. But notwithstanding his noble intention, the
SC reminded the judge of the price in exchange for the judicial
position. And the price is that he must regulate, if not minimize
business activities that will give ground for disqualification from cases
before him, especially in this instance where he cannot inhibit because
there is no other judge.
3. The judge lends money at unconscionable interests and files suits for
collection at the place where he is judge, to enable him to take
advantage of his position. Reprimanded.
SECTION 4. Judges shall not knowingly, while a proceeding is before, or
could come before, them to 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.
Trial by publicity - There is trial by publicity if the judge is swayed by
overwhelming public opinion, hence, he is now unable to decide
independently based on the facts and law but based on overwhelming
public opinion.
Judges should not make any comment that might reasonably be expected
to affect the outcome of such proceeding.
Castillo v. Juan
In every litigation, the manner and attitude of the judge are crucial to
everyone concerned. He should, in the performance of his functions, avoid
side comments, side remarks, hasty conclusions, loose statements, or
gratuitous utterances that could form the basis for erroneous impressionsin the mind of those who hear and who could conclude that he is
prejudging the case or the issues that come before him.
Bar Exam Question
Judge advised the parties to plea bargain or compromise. That by itself
would not be so unethical. What made it unethical was the way he
advised. Accused, I suggest that you plead guilty to a lesser offense.
-
7/25/2019 Legal and Judicial Ethics Midterms Transcript 20131
13/81
Problem Areas in Legal Ethics Midterms, 2013)
EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PALE team
Abejero, Aguilar, Bautista, Dacay, Go, Lim, Llanera, Marquez, Ocupe, Pelayo
13
Anyway, I think the prosecution will accept your plea because their
evidence is not so strong.Or Defendant, I suggest that you compromise
because you are losing.
So those side comments might give the impression that the judge has
already prejudged the case. The first hearing has not even been done yet,
and yet the judge has already prejudged the case. So the judge should not
make any comment that might be misconstrued or that might create
impressions on anyone that is watching.
SECTION 5. Judges shall disqualify themselves from participating in any
proceeding 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 impartially. Such proceedings include, but are not limited
to instances where:
a) The judge has actual bias or prejudice concerning a party or
personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the
proceedings;
b) The judge previously served as a lawyer or was a material witness in
the matter in controversy;
c) The judge or member of his or her family, has economic interest inthe outcome of the matter in controversy;
d) The judge served as executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or
lawyer in the case or matter in controversy, or a former associate of
the judge served as a counsel during their association, or the judge
was a material witness therein;
e) The judges ruling in the lower court is the subject of review;
f ) The judg e i s related by consa nguinity or affinity to a p arty litigant
within the 6th civil degree or to counsel within the 4th civil degree; or
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 the controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or
any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome
of the proceedings;
Take note of the word shall. Judges shalldisqualify. This is mandatory,
there is no discretion involved. The judge has no other choice but to
disqualify himself. In the instances of mandatory disqualification, the law
itself conclusively presumed that the judge is unable to decide the matter
impartially.
a) The judge has
a. actual bias or prejudice concerning a party or
b. personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the
proceedings
Judge is riding a bus, and then the bus collided with another bus. The judge
was there to witness everything. If a case for reckless imprudence xxx filed
against one of the drivers is raffled to the judge, can the judge disqualify
himself from hearing the case?
-
7/25/2019 Legal and Judicial Ethics Midterms Transcript 20131
14/81
Problem Areas in Legal Ethics Midterms, 2013)
EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PALE team
Abejero, Aguilar, Bautista, Dacay, Go, Lim, Llanera, Marquez, Ocupe, Pelayo
14
- YES. The disqualification is mandatory. The judge has personal
knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts. The judge may be a witness
but he cannot hear the case.
b) The judge previously
a. served as a lawyer or
b. was a material witness in the matter in controversy;
c) The judge or member of his or her family, has economic interest in the
outcome of the matter in controversy
Self-explanatory. Again, recall the definition of Judges family.
Judges familyincludes a
a. judges spouse,
b. son,
c. daughter,
d. son-in-law,
e. daughter-in-law, and
f. any other relative by consanguinity or affinity
i. within the sixth civil degree, or
ii. person who is a companion or employee of the judge and
iii.
who lives in the judges household
d) The judge served as
a. executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or lawyer in the case or
matter in controversy, or
b. a former associate of the judge served as a counsel during their
association, or
c. the judge was a material witness therein
e) The judges ruling in the lower court is the subject of review
From RTC judge, the judge is promoted CA justice. One of the cases raffled
to him was an appeal of his decision as RTC judge. Can the judge disqualify
himself?
YES. Mandatory disqualification. He cannot review his own decision.
f) The judge is related by consanguinity or affinity to a party litigant
within the 6th civil degree or to counsel within the 4th civil degree; or
relationship to the lawyer.
If lawyer4th
civil degree
If litigantup to the 6th
civil degree
g) The judge knows that his or her spouse or child
a. has a financial interest,
i. as heir,
ii.
legatee,iii. creditor,
iv. fiduciary,
v. or otherwise, in the subject matter in the controversy or in a
party to the proceeding,
b. or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the
outcome of the proceedings;
-
7/25/2019 Legal and Judicial Ethics Midterms Transcript 20131
15/81
Problem Areas in Legal Ethics Midterms, 2013)
EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PALE team
Abejero, Aguilar, Bautista, Dacay, Go, Lim, Llanera, Marquez, Ocupe, Pelayo
15
Bar Exam Question
A bus driven by X collided with and damaged the car of Y. In the criminal
case filed for reckless imprudence xxx Judge G acquitted the accused X.
Subsequently, a separate civil action for damages was filed against X. The
civil case was raffled again to the sala of Judge G. Can Judge G be
disqualified from hearing the case? He was the same judge who heard the
criminal case and acquitted X. Can he be disqualified from hearing the civil
case for damages?
- NO. No ground for mandatory disqualification. He has no personal
knowledge. He only has his knowledge as a judge from the records of
the case. That does not translate to personal knowledge.
- He has no economic interest.
- He is not reviewing his decision of acquittal.
-
It is an entirely separate case. He cannot be disqualified.
VOLUNTARY INHIBITION
Rule 137, Rules of Court provides for disqualification of judicial officers.
Section 1:
1st
paragraph: similar to what we have just read, grounds of mandatory
disqualification
2nd
paragraph: the new code of judicial conduct, the old code does not
expressly provide for voluntary inhibition, but you have heard of judges
voluntarily inhibiting. That is allowed. But the authority is not the Code of
Judicial Conduct, but Rule 137, Section 1, Rules of Court, particularly the
2nd
paragraph which says:
A judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion, disqualify
himself from sitting in a case, for just or valid reasons other than
those mentioned above.
Even if there are no grounds for mandatory disqualification, a judge may
still inhibit from a case. It says for just and valid reasons. That is voluntary
inhibition. It essentially involves discretion on the part of the judge. It is
strictly a matter of conscience.
What is the standard to be followed by a judge in examining himself?
- The judge must ask himself whether a losing party could entertain a
reasonable belief that the judge was partial to the prevailing party. It
is not whether the judge was actually partial or not. So even the
appearance of partiality, the judge should already determine if there
could be the appearance of partiality, or bias, or prejudice.
Examples:
1. Utang na loob in a case the lawyer appearing before the judge
was the same lawyer member of the JBC who recommended the
appointment of the judge to the bench. Valid ground to
voluntarily inhibit, but not a ground for mandatory
disqualification.
2.
Counsel of a party in a case before the judge is also the judgescounsel in a separate case
Since voluntary inhibition is strictly a matter of conscience, there could be
many grounds. The more important question is, are there grounds which
the Supreme Court has already declared insufficient grounds for voluntary
inhibition?
-
7/25/2019 Legal and Judicial Ethics Midterms Transcript 20131
16/81
Problem Areas in Legal Ethics Midterms, 2013)
EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PALE team
Abejero, Aguilar, Bautista, Dacay, Go, Lim, Llanera, Marquez, Ocupe, Pelayo
16
1. Counsel for a party has filed an administrative case against the
judgeit is not a ground for voluntary inhibition. The mere act of
filing an administrative case against the judge is insufficient
ground for voluntary inhibition. In the absence of evidence that
the judge was in fact prejudiced against the lawyer, you cannot
presume bias or prejudice. That cannot be presumed.
- Also, a contrary rule would lead to unpleasant consequences.
Imagine if a judge can just voluntarily inhibit if you have filed
an administrative case against him, it now becomes easy for
lawyers to get rid of judges that they do not like.
- So mere filing does not translate to evidence of actual
prejudice. There should be separate evidence showing that
the judge really cannot anymore decide the case fairly.
2. Mere friendshipthe judge is a close friend of a lawyer appearing
before him. Not a ground. Judges should be independent from
society, but they are not required to withdraw from society.
Judges are not required to drop all their friends and live a very
lonely, solitary life. So it is expected for judges to have friends
within the legal circle, they are expected to have lawyer friends.
Again, in the absence of actual bias.
3. Counsel is a classmate of the judge
Because voluntary inhibition is discretionary, in many cases, a mandamus
suit did not prosper. It cannot be compelled by mandamus or prohibition,
generally. But there are exceptions:
Pagoda Philippines, Inc. v. Universal Canning, Inc.
While ordinarily mandamus will not prosper to compel a discretionary act,
the writ shall issue in instances of gross abuse of discretion, manifest
injustice or palpable excess of authority, equivalent to denial of a settled
right to which the petitioner is entitled, and when there is no other plain,
speedy and adequate remedy. This court has recognized that a judges
decision to refuse to act on account of some disqualification is not
conclusive and his competency may be determined on an application for
mandamus to compel him to act.
In this case, the judge inhibited from hearing the case. In her order of
inhibition, the judge was able to explain her actions, and the judge was
even able to justify all her actions in the case. But then, the judge inhibited
nonetheless to preclude any suspicion on her part. The SC said that there is
no cause for inhibition. So there are instances where the mere reason just
to preclude any doubt or suspicion on her part although there is no bias,
just to preclude any doubt, she decided to inhibit . SC said this cannot be
done. The judges right to inhibit must be weighed against their duty to
decide cases without fear of repression. To affirm the judges order to
inhibit would open the floodgates to a form of forum shopping, in which
the litigants would be allowed to shop for a judge more sympathetic to
their case. Such action would be antithetical to the speedy and fair
administration of justice.
The second paragraph does not give judges the unfettered discretion to
decide whether to desist from hearing a case. The inhibition must be for
just and valid causes. The mere implication of bias and partiality is not
enough ground for them to inhibit especially if the charge is without basis.
-
7/25/2019 Legal and Judicial Ethics Midterms Transcript 20131
17/81
Problem Areas in Legal Ethics Midterms, 2013)
EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PALE team
Abejero, Aguilar, Bautista, Dacay, Go, Lim, Llanera, Marquez, Ocupe, Pelayo
17
Barnes v. Reyes
Here, there is a specific performance plus damages case, raffled before
Judge Padilla. Judge Padilla dismissed the case on motion of the defendant.
The dismissal was appealed to the CA all the way to the SC, and the SC
reversed the RTC and remanded the hearing of the civil case to the RTC. So
the complainant in the RTC now wanted to inhibit the judge because the
judge previously dismissed the case, so the complainant was not confident
so much of the impartiality of the judge anymore because it is the same
judge who previously dismissed the case. The judge inhibited. In her
inhibitory order, the judge said that the motion for her disqualification
contained no statement of specific act or acts that would show her
partiality or bias in the treatment of the case, nonetheless is inhibiting to
preclude any suspicion or doubts on her impartiality.
SC said it was NOT proper. It was only on account of dispelling any doubt
and perception of bias. Clearly therefore, no just and valid reason supports
the inhibition of the judge.
Another issue: The fact that the judge previously decided against the
petitioner is not a proper ground for inhibition. It is not enough reason
absent any extrinsic evidence of malice or bad faith to conclude that the
judge was biased and partial against petitioner. So the remedy of
erroneous interlocutory rulings in the course of a trial is not the outright
disqualification of a judge, for there is yet to come a judge with
omniscience to issue rulings that are always infallible. Judges will always be
mistaken. If you use that as a reason to inhibit the judge, then it is not
sufficient reason, it is not a valid reason. The courts will close shop if we
disqualify judges who err, for we all err.
Martinez v. Gironella
The judge insisted on hearing the case even if there was a motion for
inhibition, notwithstanding vehement objection by the other party. There
is a murder case before this judge. There were 3 accused, but only 1
accused (C) is being tried because the 2 others (A and B) are at large. In the
decision of the trial judge in the criminal case, the trial judge said,
according to evidence presented by the prosecution, accused (C) is only, if
ever he is liable, would only be liable as an accessory. But even then, C was
acquitted because he was not proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. And
in the same decision, the judge said that A is really the principal, A is the
one guilty of murder.
Subsequently, A surrendered. Now, the case is also filed against him,
before the same judge. A pleaded not guilty, and he moved for the
disqualification of the judge because that same judge in his decision in the
prior criminal case already said that A is guilty of the murder. But the judge
said that there is no bias, or partiality because he said that what he said in
the previous decision was what the evidence suggested. Since only C was
tried, A was unable to confront witnesses against him. He was unable to
present his evidence. So there is still the possibility that A would be
acquitted once the defenses of A would be heard.
However, SC said where respondent judge in acquitting the accused stated
that the crime was committed by petitioner who was then at large, and
subsequently petitioner was apprehended and tried before respondent, it
was held that respondents previous statement rendered it impossible for
him to be free from the suspicion that in deciding petitioners case, he will
be biased and prejudiced. Under such circumstances, prohibition is
available to enjoin him from deciding the case, and petitioner is entitled to
have his case decided by another judge.
-
7/25/2019 Legal and Judicial Ethics Midterms Transcript 20131
18/81
Problem Areas in Legal Ethics Midterms, 2013)
EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PALE team
Abejero, Aguilar, Bautista, Dacay, Go, Lim, Llanera, Marquez, Ocupe, Pelayo
18
In addition to the remedies of prohibition and mandamus, an
administrative case against the judge could also be filed.
What are the disadvantages on the rule of inhibition?
1. It can be used by a judge to extricate himself from a case. The
judge could just concoct any reason and make it seem valid, and
in so doing, he is able to extricate himself from an undesirable
case.
In many cases like those cases where the SC held that it is not a
valid ground, SC said that it is not a valid ground, go ahead.
2.
The lawyers could also use it to choose a judge.
To prevent these disadvantages, we have to rewrite the guidelines of the
SC. In the case of Ty v. Banco Filipino:
Mere suspicion of partiality is not enough. There should be hard evidence
to prove it, as well as manifest showing of bias and partiality. Issuance of
erroneous orders and decisions that pertain to the judges judicial
functions may not be proper consideration to charge a judge of bias,
except where the orders taken not singly, but collectively show that the
judge has lost the cold neutrality of an impartial magistrate. So in effect, it
says, it is difficult to find suspicion of partiality in just one issuance alone.
Although there are instances where one order is enough, but in the usual
case, the orders are the decisions or whatever writs coming from the
court, taken collectively, must show that the judge has lost the cold
neutrality of an impartial judge. So it is difficult to prove partiality.
SECTION 6. A judge disqualified as stated above may, instead of
withdrawing from the proceeding, disclose on the records that basis of
disqualification. If, based on such disclosure, the parties and lawyers
independently of the judges participation, all agree in writing that the
reason for the inhibition is immaterial or unsubstantial, the judge may then
participate in the proceeding. The agreement, signed by all parties and
lawyers, shall be incorporated in the record of the proceedings.
Section 6 presupposes that there is a ground for mandatory
disqualification.
This refers to what we call REMITTAL OF DISQUALIFICATION. Parties are
allowed to waive a mandatory ground for disqualification, for as long as
these 3 requisites are complied with.
General rule:if there is a ground for mandatory disqualification, the judge
must disqualify
Exception:valid REMITTAL OF DISQUALIFICATION
Requisites:
1. The parties and their lawyers agree independently of the judges
participation2. They agree that the reason for inhibition is immaterial or
unsubstantial
3. The agreement is reduced to writing, signed by all parties and
lawyers, entered upon the records of the case.
-
7/25/2019 Legal and Judicial Ethics Midterms Transcript 20131
19/81
-
7/25/2019 Legal and Judicial Ethics Midterms Transcript 20131
20/81
Problem Areas in Legal Ethics Midterms, 2013)
EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PALE team
Abejero, Aguilar, Bautista, Dacay, Go, Lim, Llanera, Marquez, Ocupe, Pelayo
20
SECTON 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 judicial
office.
So many restrictions on the judge, and the judge must wholeheartedly
embrace these restrictions. Business investments for instance. They must
accept and respect these restrictions.
Examples of restrictions:
1. Use of intemperate language
2.
Getting drunk in a party
3. The judge confronted her former boyfriend and the latters
female companion in the restaurant
Found in the old code only:
- A Judge should regulate his activities to minimize the risk of conflict
with judicial duties.
- Judges, because they are also human beings, they are entitled to have
extrajudicial activities. Activities that have nothing to do with theirbeing judges, they are allowed.
- Found in Canon 5 of the old code of judicial conduct.
Examples:
a. Advocational, civic, charitable activities
b. Financial activities
c. Fiduciary activities
d. Practice of other profession
e. Extrajudicial appointments
f. Political activities
A. ADVOCATIONAL, CIVIC AND CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES
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:
a. write, teach and speak on non-legal subjects;
- Judge is also a chef. He can teach, etc. cooking on weekends.
b.
engage in the arts, sports, and other special recreational activities;
c. participate in civic and charitable activities;
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.
Judge is a painter, and at the same time a model. Is it proper for a
judge to be a model in nude paintings?
-
It may be an expression of art but again, the activitiesmust NOT CONFLICT WITH OR DEGRADE judicial
functions.
Judge is a gymnast, contortionist even, and he has a talent of
swallowing fire. Can he perform in a circus?
- NO. It has a tendency of degrading judicial functions.
-
7/25/2019 Legal and Judicial Ethics Midterms Transcript 20131
21/81
Problem Areas in Legal Ethics Midterms, 2013)
EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PALE team
Abejero, Aguilar, Bautista, Dacay, Go, Lim, Llanera, Marquez, Ocupe, Pelayo
21
B. FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES
A judge shall refrain from financial and business dealing that tend to reflect
adversely on the court's impartiality, interfere with the proper
performance of judicial activities or 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 disqualifications.
Discussed before:
a. The judge cannot open bonding companies. If he does, there
might be ethical objections.
b. If employee, he must resign within 30 days.
c. If he owns the business, he must divest his interest or
shareholdings within 60 days.
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.
Allowed
- director of a family business. That is the only thing allowed. So you
cannot be a manager because it would require much of your time andattention. As compared to directors who would meet not so
frequently.
- A judge or any immediate member of the family shall not accept a gift,
bequest, factor or loan from anyone except as may be allowed by law.
No information acquired in a judicial capacity shall be used or disclosed by
a judge in any financial dealing or for any other purpose not related to
judicial activities.
Should not use judicial information for business. Art. 1491 of the civil code
judges are not allowed to acquire properties or rights in litigations before
him.
If the judge purchases the land subject of litigation before him, how
would you characterize the contract of sale?
- VOID. Contrary to law, contrary to art. 1491 of the civil
code.
Judges must also make full financial disclosure of all their financial
activities.
In the SALN, there is also a portion of business interests, not just of the
judge, but also members of his own family.
C. FIDUCIARY ACTIVITIES
A judge should not serve as the executor, administrator, trustee, guardian,
or other fiduciary, EXCEPTfor the estate, trusts, or person of a member of
the immediate family, and then only if such service will not interfere with
the proper performance of judicial duties.
Example:
The judges wife died. The judge is named executor of the wifes will. The
judge is so rich, and has property holdings all over the globe. To execute
the will, to partition the estate of the wife, would require practically 24/7
-
7/25/2019 Legal and Judicial Ethics Midterms Transcript 20131
22/81
Problem Areas in Legal Ethics Midterms, 2013)
EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PALE team
Abejero, Aguilar, Bautista, Dacay, Go, Lim, Llanera, Marquez, Ocupe, Pelayo
22
on the part of the executor for a very long time. Should the judge accept
the designation as executor?
NO. He may not because his duties as executor will interfere with the
proper performance of judicial duties. He might not be able to work as a
judge anymore as he is busy partitioning the vast estate.
"Member of immediate family" shall be limited to the spouse and
relatives within the second degreeof consanguinity. As a family, a judge
shall not:
a. serve in proceedings that might come before the court of said
judge; or
b.
act as such contrary to rules 5.02 to 5.05.
D. PRACTICE OF OTHER PROFESSION
Absolute prohibition: 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.
Teaching is allowed, it is another profession, for as long as it will not
conflict with judicial functions.
Can the MTC judge act as a notary public?
- YES. We call it NOTARY PUBLIC EX OFFICIO. He can engage in the
notarization of documents connected with the exercise of official
functions. So there is a complaint, can the judge notarize the
complaint? Yes. He may.
- In the far flung municipalities where there are no lawyers or notaries
public, the MTC judge can even perform any act within the
competence of a regular notary public. So even private documents,
the MTC judge can notarize in far flung municipalities where there are
no lawyers or notaries public.
Conditions:
1.
All notarial fees shall be for the government, and turned over tothe municipal treasurer.
2. Certification must be made in the notarized documents attesting
to the lack of any lawyer, notary public, in such locality.
E. EXTRAJUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS
Can judges be appointed in other agencies or bodies that are non-
judicial?
- A judge shall not accept appointment or designation to any agency
performing quasi-judicialor administrativefunctions.
-
7/25/2019 Legal and Judicial Ethics Midterms Transcript 20131
23/81
Problem Areas in Legal Ethics Midterms, 2013)
EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PALE team
Abejero, Aguilar, Bautista, Dacay, Go, Lim, Llanera, Marquez, Ocupe, Pelayo
23
In Re: Designation of Judge Manzano
SC did not allow judges membership in the Ilocos Norte Provincial
Committee on Justice which was an administrative body.
So if it is not quasi-judicial or administrative body, it is allowed.
F. POLITICAL ACTIVITIES
Absolutely prohibited:
A judge is entitled to entertain personal views on political questions. But to
avoid suspicion of political partisanship, a judge shall not make political
speeches, contribute to party funds, publicly endorse candidates forpolitical office or participate in other partisan political activities.
SECTION 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 suspicion or appearance of
favoritism or partiality.
Unethical acts:
1. The judge who always invites members of the sanggunian who
appear before his court, to his chambers for coffee and a quick
chat before starting the hearing for that day.
2. Asking for court facilities, like aircon, from lawyers. Judge is
inviting opportunity to have familiarity with lawyers.
SECTION 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.
Again, just review what is the definition of family.
Judges family includes a judges spouse, son, daughter, son-in-law,
daughter-in-law, and any other relative by consanguinity or affinity within
the sixth civil degree, or person who is a companion or employee of the
judge and who lives in the judges household.
SECTION 5.Judges shall not allow the use of their residence by a memberof the legal profession to receive clients of the latter or of other members
of the legal profession.
The judges residence cannot be utilized as an office of lawyers.
SECTION 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.
-
7/25/2019 Legal and Judicial Ethics Midterms Transcript 20131
24/81
Problem Areas in Legal Ethics Midterms, 2013)
EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PALE team
Abejero, Aguilar, Bautista, Dacay, Go, Lim, Llanera, Marquez, Ocupe, Pelayo
24
They also have rights. But there could be restrictions on the way they
exercise these rights. You do not see judges rallying in the streets for wage
or salary increase.
In exercising their rights, it would always have to be in conformity with the
dignity of the judicial office. They could lobby before the SC for an
increase, but not to rally.
CASE
Judge ruled in this wise: Respondent is a self-ordained, public tyrant, with
a contaminated mind, and assuming the position of a crocodile.
The order of the judge appears to be a pleading of the adverse party. It
does not appear to be an order emanating from the court, which is
supposed to be objective and impartial. In this order, the SC said that thejudge gave the appearance that he has prejudged the case and has already
formed an opinion regarding the respondent.
SECTION 7. Judges shall inform themselves about their personal fiduciary
financial interests and sh all make reasonable efforts to be informed about
the financial interests of members of their family.
SALN, full financial disclosure
SECTION 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
anyone else, nor shall they convey or permit others to convey the
impression that anyone is in a special position improperly to influence in
the performance of judicial duties.
Examples:
1. Judge filed his own case for estafa. He is the private offended
party. He filed such case in his own sala and issued a warrant of
arrest against the accused. Here, there is the obvious abuse of the
judicial office, to advance his personal interest.
2. A judge owns a restaurant, and in the bulletin board of his
courtroom: WANTED: waiters, waitresses, interested applicants
may submit their application and resume to the judge. And the
judge also conducted interviews in his chambers. So there was
improper use of judicial facilities for the promotion of his
business.
SECTION 9. Confidential information acquired by judges in their capacity
shall not be used or disclosed by any other purpose related to their judicial
duties.
SECTION 10. Subject to the proper performance of judicial duties, judges
may:
a) Write, lecture, and participate in activities concerning the law, the legalsystem, 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
-
7/25/2019 Legal and Judicial Ethics Midterms Transcript 20131
25/81
Problem Areas in Legal Ethics Midterms, 2013)
EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PALE team
Abejero, Aguilar, Bautista, Dacay, Go, Lim, Llanera, Marquez, Ocupe, Pelayo
25
of the judicial office or otherwise interfere with the performance of judicial
duties.
SECTION 11. Judges shall not practice law whilst the holder of judicial
office.
In a case, a judge advised the municipality that it can impose a certain kind
of tax. The SC said that it was unethical for the judge to advise the
municipality because in so doing, the judge acted as a lawyer. Judges can
only give opinions in actual cases pending before them.
SECTION 12.Judges may form or join associations of judges or participate
in other organizations representing the interests of judges.
SECTION 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.
Correlate this with the provisions in the RPC regarding bribery, indirect
bribery, also with RA 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, as well
as RA 6713 Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards of Public Officials.
If a judge is held liable under Section 13, he is not only susceptible to
administrative action, but he could also be criminally prosecuted.
SECTION 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.
So section 14 really just gives more teeth to section 13, because without
section 14, you could provide opportunities or avenues on the part of the
judge to escape the prohibition in section 13 by asking the person to give
the gift instead to the court staff. So section 14 expands the prohibition
under section 13.
SECTION 15. Subject to the 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.
Take note of the phrase appropriate to the occasion on which it is
made. So not all gifts therefore are prohibited. Only those gifts that are
inappropriate are not allowed. So if a judge is invited speaker in a seminar,
you may give a gift to the judge, like a plaque of appreciation, or anything
appropriate to the occasion.
-
7/25/2019 Legal and Judicial Ethics Midterms Transcript 20131
26/81
Problem Areas in Legal Ethics Midterms, 2013)
EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PALE team
Abejero, Aguilar, Bautista, Dacay, Go, Lim, Llanera, Marquez, Ocupe, Pelayo
26
RA 6713
Section 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions.
xxx
(d) Solicitation or acceptance of gifts. - Public officials and employees shall
not solicit or accept, directly or indirectly, any gift, gratuity, favor,
entertainment, loan or anything of monetary value from any person in the
course of their official duties or in connection with any operation being
regulated by, or any transaction which may be affected by the functions of
their office.
CASE:
Judge accepted the free use, for a year, of a car, and availed for free ofbattery recharging services of the shop of a litigant who has a pending case
before him. The judge violated RA 6713.
As to permissible gifts from foreign governments:
(i) The acceptance and retention by a public official or employee of a gift of
nominal value tendered and received as a souvenir or mark of courtesy;
(ii) The acceptance by a public official or employee of a gift in the nature of
a scholarship or fellowship grant or medical treatment; or
(iii) The acceptance by a public official or employee of travel grants or
expenses for travel taking place entirely outside the Philippine (such as
allowances, transportation, food, and lodging) of more than nominal value
if such acceptance is appropriate or consistent with the interests of the
Philippines, and permitted by the head of office, branch or agency to which
he belongs.
_____________________________________________________________
CANON 5: EQUALITY
Ensuring equality of treatment to all before the court is essential to the due
performance of judicial office.
SECTION 1. Judges shall be aware of, and understand, diversity in society
and differences arising from various sources, including but not limited torace, color, sex, religion, national origin, caste, disability, age, marital
status, sexual orientation, social and economic status and like causes.
General rule:Treat everybody and everything equally
Exception:If there is a valid basis to differentiate
Section 1 requires judges to know the valid causes to differentiate.
Judges must know that there could be factors to give different treatments,
and it would be injustice to treat everyone equally if such factors exist in a
case. So when you say equality, there is really no prohibition against
differentiation. What is prohibited is differentiation on improper or
irrelevant grounds.
-
7/25/2019 Legal and Judicial Ethics Midterms Transcript 20131
27/81
Problem Areas in Legal Ethics Midterms, 2013)
EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PALE team
Abejero, Aguilar, Bautista, Dacay, Go, Lim, Llanera, Marquez, Ocupe, Pelayo
27
For example, should sex matter when it comes to the right to vote or the
right to go to school, or the right to work?
No. So there should be no differentiation.
We have Juvenile Justice Welfare Act, Senior Citizens Act, Magna Carta of
Disabled Persons, Solo Parents Act, et cetera. There is a different
treatment here.
SECTION 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.
There was a judge who, when interviewed, said, I am pro-accused; I am
tender to the rights of the accused. This is improper. You showed that you
have a preference already, irrespective of the facts of each case.
SECTION 3. Judges shall carry out judicial duties with appropriate
consideration for all persons, 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.
So treat everyone fairly and equally if there is no basis to differentiate. If
there is basis, there should be a different treatment. Like a minor witness,
he may receive different treatment. He may be allowed to testify in a way
different from the usual adult witnesses. Some minors are even named
AAA or BBB to protect their identity.
The judges may also treat new lawyers differently. Judges should be
patient, attentive, and courteous to lawyers, especially the young and
inexperienced. So judges are required to be more courteous and more
considerate to new lawyers.
SECTION 4.Judges shall not knowingly permit court staff or other subject to
his or her influence, direction or control to differentiate between persons
concerned, in a matter before the judge, on any irrelevant ground.
SECTION 5.Judges shall require lawyers in proceedings before the court to
refrain from manifesting, by words or conduct, 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.
So in a case a judge reprimanded the lawyer for making sexist and racist
comments in his pleading.
__________________________________________________________
-
7/25/2019 Legal and Judicial Ethics Midterms Transcript 20131
28/81
Problem Areas in Legal Ethics Midterms, 2013)
EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PALE team
Abejero, Aguilar, Bautista, Dacay, Go, Lim, Llanera, Marquez, Ocupe, Pelayo
28
CANON 6: COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE
Competence and diligence are prerequisite to the due performance of
judicial office.
SECTION 1. The judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all other
activities.
If you remember judges are allowed to have extrajudicial activities, but
section 1 reminds judges that the judicial duties should take precedence
over all activities. So if the judge is also a culinary lecturer, his job as a
judge must have priority over his other activities.
SECTION 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 courts operations.
We might say that the job of the judge is to hear and decide cases, but that
is not the only job of the judge. Another job of the judge is administration.
In other words, aside from hearing and deciding cases, the judge is also the
manager of his courtroom; the judge is the boss of his courtroom. As such,
he must know how to manage his personnel. He must know how to
manage case files, how to do efficient record keeping, etc. The judge
cannot just lay the blame on court employees, because it is the duty of the
judge to manage his courtroom. So judges have been disciplined for
missing case records, missing case exhibits.
If you are a judge and you have a court personnel who is rude to the
people, it is the duty of the judge to supervise, to correct the inappropriate
behavior of that personnel. So aside from adjudication, the judge is also an
administrator of his courtroom.
You see a courtroom that is very dirty, very messy, it could reflect badly on
the administrative capability of the judge. Or the personnel are always
late, or absent, it could reflect on the judges administrative capability.
SECTION 3. Judges shall take reasonable steps to maintain and enlarge
their knowledge, skills and personal qualities necessary for the properperformance of judicial duties, taking advantage for this purpose of the
training and other facilities which should be made available, under judicial
control to judges
Are judges required to attend MCLE?
- NO. They are not required, it is mandatory only for lawyers. But
they are still welcome to attend.
- They have a counterpart to MCLE in the judiciary; they have a
continuing legal education conducted by the Philippine Judicial
Academy. So PJA conducts continuing legal education on judges
and justices and that is mandatory. The reason is to ensure that
judges keep themselves updated with law and jurisprudence.
-
7/25/2019 Legal and Judicial Ethics Midterms Transcript 20131
29/81
Problem Areas in Legal Ethics Midterms, 2013)
EH 501 Moot Court
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PALE team
Abejero, Aguilar, Bautista, Dacay, Go, Lim, Llanera, Marquez, Ocupe, Pelayo
29
In decided cases, it is the judges duty to follow the doctrine and ruling of
the SC. Any deviation from this rule may have detrimental consequences
beyond the immediate controversy.
What if the judge feels that the SC decision is wrong, or against his
conscience?
- If the judge feels that a doctrine enunciated by the SC is against
his way of reasoning or conscience, he may say his personal
opinion on the matter and should decide the case in accordance
the law or doctrine and not his personal belief. So he is free to
have a side comment if he does not agree with it, but he still has
to apply it.
- Judges should not allow their personal beliefs and convictions to
prevail over settled jurisprudence.
Example:
Case of a judge who renders decisions pursuant to dwarves. He also has
healing sessions in his courtroom. Judge dismissed from the judiciary.
SC said spiritual, paranormal beliefs have no room in the decision making
of the judge. In the case, the judge admitted that he renders decisions that
way.
They should not also be ignorant of the law. Ignorance of the law is the
main spring of injustice as well as corruption. Disrespect and lack of
confidence will be detrimental if judges are ignorant. You cross reference
this with pertinent RPC provisions. Knowingly rendering unjust judgment,
judgment rendered through negligence, unjust interlocutory order, and
malicious delay in the administration of justice.
DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL IMMUNITY
A judge is not made liable for mere error. To be liable, such error must
constitute gross ignorance of the law, bad faith, dishonesty, hatred or
s