JUDICIAL ETHICS Judicial Ethics branch of moral science which treats of the right and proper conduct to be observed

d by all judges and magistrates in trying and deciding controversies brought to them for adjudication which conduct must be demonstrative of impartiality, integrity, competence, independence and freedom from improprieties. Sources of Judicial Ethics 6. Code of Judicial Conduct 7. The Constitution (Arts. VIII, IX and III); 8. Civil Code (Arts. 9, 20, 27, 32, 35, 739, 1491, 2005, 2035, 2046); 9. Revised Rules of Court (Rules 71, 135, 137, 139B, 130); 10. Revised Penal Code (Arts. 204, 205, 206, 207); 11. Anit-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019); 12. Canons of Judicial Ethics (AO# 162); 13. Code of Professional Responsibility; 14. Judiciary Act of 1948 (RA 296); 15. Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 (BP 129); 16. Supreme Court Decisions; 17. Foreign Decisions; 18. Opinions of Authorities; 19. SC Circulars In Re: Sotto, 82 Phil. 595 The Supreme Court of the Philippines is, under the Constitution, the last bulwark to which the Filipino people may go to obtain relief for the grievances or protection of their rights when these are trampled upon, and if the people lose their confidence in the honesty and integrity of the members of this Court and believe that they cannot have justice therefrom, they might be driven to take the law into their hands, and disorder and perhaps chaos might be the result. As a member of the bar and an officer of the courts, Atty. Vicente Sotto, like any other, is duty bound to uphold the dignity and authority of this Court, to which he owes fidelity according to the oath he has taken as such attorney, and not to promote distrust in the administration of justice. Respect to the courts guarantees the stability of other institutions, which without such guaranty would be resting on a very shaky foundation. Luque vs. Kayanan, 29 SCRA 173 It is the duty of both counsel and judge to maintain, not to destroy, the high esteem and regard for courts. Any act on the part of one or the other that tends to undermine the peoples respect for, and confidence in, the administration of justice is to be avoided. In re: Almacen, 31 SCRA 578 Courts and judges are not sacrosanct. They should and expect critical evaluation of their performance. For like the executive and the legislative branches, the judiciary is rooted in the soil of democratic society, nourished by the periodic appraisal of the citizens whom it is expected to serve. DEFINITIONS: Court a board or other tribunal which decides a litigation or contest Judge a public officer who, by virtue of his office, is clothed with judicial authority, a public officer lawfully appointed to decide litigated questions in accordance with law. De Jure Judge one who is exercising the office of judge as a matter of right; an officer of a court who has been duly and legally appointed, qualified and whose term has not expired. De Facto Judge an officer who is not fully invested with all the powers and duties conceded to judges, but is exercising the office of a judge under some color of right. Qualifications of SC members: 3. Natural born Citizen of the Philippines;

4. At least 40 years of age; 5. Must have been for at least 15 years a judge of a lower court or engaged in the practice of law (Sec. 7 (1), Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution) QUALIFICATIONS OF RTC JUDGES 1. Natural-born citizen of the Philippines; 2. At least 35 years of age; 3. For at least 10 years has been engaged in the practice of law in the Phil. or has held public office in the Phil. requiring admission to the practice of law as an indispensable requisite. QUALIFICATIONS OF MTC JUDGES 1. Natural-born citizen of the Philippines; 2. At least 30 years of age; 3. For at least 5 years has been engaged in the practice of law in the Phil. or has held public office in the Phil. requiring admission to the practice of law as an indispensable requisite. Q. In his written application for the office of MTC judge, B failed to disclose that he had two criminal cases pending against him. Concerned citizens of the town charged him with conduct prejudicial to the service. May he be dismissed even if he was later acquitted of all charges in the criminal cases? A. Yes. Every prospective appointee to the judiciary must apprise the appointing authority of every matter bearing on his fitness for judicial office, including such circumstances as may reflect on his integrity and probity. The act of concealing 2 criminal cases against him is clear proof of his lack of the said qualifications and renders him unworthy to sit as a judge. His later being acquitted is immaterial for he is not being chastened for having had a pending criminal case at the time of his application, but for his dishonesty in seeking that office. (Gutierrez v. Belan, 294 SCRA 1) CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT PREAMBLE An honorable, competent and independent judiciary exists to administer justice and thus promote the unity of the country, the stability of government, and the well-being of the people. Courts are established to adjudicate peacefully controversies between individual parties for the ascertainment, enforcement and redress of private rights, or for the punishment of wrongs done to the public. CANON 1 A judge should uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary Rule 1.01. A judge should be the embodiment of competence, integrity, and independence. Talens-Dabon v. Arceo, A.M. No. RTJ-96-1336, July 25, 1996 xxx xxx judges and justices, must not only be proficient in both the substantive and procedural aspects of the law, but more importantly, they must possess the highest integrity, probity, and unquestionable moral uprightness, both in their public and private lives. Arban vs. Borja, 143 SCRA 634 A judge is the visible representation of the law and more importantly of justice. As such, he should avoid even the slightest infraction of the law. The nature of a judges position demands equanimity, prudence, fortitude and courage. The rule projects that judges are the personification of proficiency (competence) in law, of incorruptibility (integrity) and of impartiality and non-subservience (independence).

Lopez vs. Fernandez, 99 SCRA 603 Justice Malcolm identified good Judges in his ponencia in Borromeo vs. Mariano (41 SCRA 322) as men who have a mastery of the principles of law, who discharge their duties in accordance with law, who are permitted to perform the duties of the office undeterred by outside influence, and who are independent and self-respecting human units in a judicial system equal and coordinate to the other two departments of government. the judiciary needs judges who read, study, and ponder judges who personify learning and equanimity. Abad vs. Bleza, 145 SCRA 603 xxx Even in the remaining years of his stay in the judiciary, he should keep abreast with the changes in the law and with the latest decisions and precedents. Service in the judiciary means a continuous study and research on the law from beginning to end. xxx Geotina vs. Gonzales, 41 SCRA 66 A judge in the performance of his duties should strive at all times to be wholly free, disinterested, impartial and independent. Buenavista, Jr. vs. Garcia, 187 SCRA 599 A judge who displays ignorance of or indifference to the law, erodes public confidence in the competence and fairness of the courts. He commits a disservice to the cause of justice. Rule 1.02. A judge should administer justice impartially and without delay. Tan, Jr. vs. Gallardo, 73 SCRA 315 It is undisputed that the sole purpose of courts of justice is to enforce the laws uniformly and impartially without regard to persons or their circumstances or the opinions of men. Judges should not only appear impartial. It must be obvious, therefore, that while judges should possess proficiency in law in order that they can competently construe and enforce the law, it is more important that they should act and behave confidence in their impartiality. Gutierrez vs. Santos, 112 Phil. 184 A party litigant is entitled to no less than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge. Martinez vs. Gironella, 65 SCRA 245 (1975) 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 his integrity. Canon 6, Canons of Judicial Ethics The requirement that judges must decide cases within the specified periods is intended to prevent delay in the administration of justice. For justice delayed is often justice denied. Rule 1.03. A judge should be vigilant against any attempt to subvert the independence of the judiciary and resist any pressure from whatever source. In re: Cunanan et al., 94 Phil. 534 If laws are passed which subvert the independence of the judiciary, judges must be wary and should declare at the first opportunity, the unconstitutionality of the law. The Constitution did not confer on Congress the authority and responsibility over the admission, suspension, disbarment and reinstatement of attorneys-at-law. In re: Garcia, 2 SCRA 984 The Executive Department may not encroach upon the constitutional prerogative of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules for admission to the practice of law in the Philippines. CANON 2 A Judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities Alazas vs. Reyes, 131 SCRA 445 A judges official conduct and his behavior in the performance of judicial duties should be free from the appearance of impropriety

and must be beyond reproach. Cabrera vs. Pajares, 142 SCRA 127 Members of the judiciary should display not only the highest integrity but must at all times conduct themselves in such a manner as to be beyond reproach and suspicion. He should be studiously careful to avoid even the slightest infraction of the law. Palang vs. Zosa, 58 SCRA 776 Because appearance is as important as reality in the performance of judicial functions, like Ceasars wife, a judge must not only be pure but beyond suspicion. Dawa, et al v. De Asa, Adm. Matter No. MTJ-98-1144, July 22, 1998 The peoples confidence in the Judicial system is founded not only on the magnitude of legal knowledge and the diligence of the members of the bench, but also on the highest standard of integrity and moral uprightness they are expected to possess. More than simply projecting an image of probity, a judge must not only appear to be a good judge; he must also appear to be a good person. Ferrer v. Maramba, Adm. Matter No. MTJ-93-795, May 14, 1998 Xxx xxx Use of physical violence and intemperate language in public reveals a marked lack of judicial temperament and selfrestraint, traits which, besides the basic equipment of learning in the law, are indispensable qualities of every judge. Rule 2.01. A judge should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Note: Rule refers to behavior in public and private life. Javier v. De Guzman, Jr., Adm. Matter No. RTJ-89-380, December 19, 1990 A judges official conduct should be free from the appearance of impropriety, and his personal behavior, not only upon the bench and in the performance of judicial duties, but also in the everyday life, should be beyond reproach. Xxx xxx That a judge official life cannot simply be detached or separated from his personal existence and that upon a Judges attributes depend the public perception of the Judiciary Makalintal v. The, A. M. RTJ-89-380, December 19, 1990 Decisions of court need not only be just but must be perceived to be just and completely free from suspicion or doubt both in its fairness and integrity. Rule 2.02. A judge should not seek publicity for personal vainglory. Judges must avoid publicity for personal vanity or self-glorification. If lawyers are prohibited from making public statements in the media regarding a pending case to arouse public opinion for or against a party (Rule 13.02, CPR) and from using or permitting the use of any undignified or self-laudatory statement regarding their qualifications or legal services. (Rule 3.01, CPR), with more reasons should judges be prohibited from seeking publicity for vanity or self-glorification. Go vs. Court of Appeals, 206 SCRA 165 A judge must not be moved by a desire to cater to public opinion to the detriment of the administration of justice. Rule 2.03. A judge shall not allow family, social, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. The prestige of social 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 special position to influence the judge. A judge like any other human beings lives in continuous interpersonal relationships in the family, in the Church, in the community and others. Whatever is the thread of the relationship, he should not allow it to influence his judicial conduct and performance of duties. San Juan v. Bagalasca, A. M. No. RTJ-97-1395, December 22, 1997 A judges note to the register of deeds, requesting that the issuance of the TCT be expedited, gives ground for suspicion that she is utilizing the power or prestige of her office to promote the interest of others.

Padilla v. Zantua, Jr., Adm. Matter No. MTJ-93-888, October 24, 1994 Constant company with a lawyer tends to breed intimacy and camaraderie to the point that favors in the future may be asked from the judge which he may find hard to refuse. Xxx This eventuality may undermine the peoples faith in the administration of justice. Gallo v. Cordero, Adm. Matter No. MTJ-95-1035, June 21, 1995 Privately meeting with accused in the absence of a complaint or the latters counsel opens a judge to charges partiality and bias. It is of no moment that the judge intention was merely to apprise the accused of his constitutional rights. Rule 2.04. A judge shall refrain from influencing in any manner the outcome of litigation or dispute pending before another court or administrative agency. Office of the Court Administrator v. De Guzman, jr., A. M. No. RTJ-93-1021, January 31, 1997 The act of interference by a judge with a case pending in the sala of another judge (e.g. by approaching the latter on behalf of a party litigant) clearly tarnishes the integrity and independence of the judiciary and subverts the peoples faith in our judicial process. Xxx xxx judges are held to higher standards of integrity and ethical conduct than attorneys or other persons not invested with the public trust. Montalban vs. Canonoy, Adm. Case No. 179-J, March 15, 1971 When the actuations of a judge are assailed on grounds other than legal ones, and imputing to the judge personal motives, the judge cannot be blamed if he takes personal interest in trying to disprove the imputations. Santiago vs. Court of Appeals, 184 SCRA 690 (1990) In a special proceeding, the judge whose order is under attack in the appellate court is merely a nominal party. Consequently, the judge himself or as petitioner should not file a petition for review seeking a reinstatement of his challenged order, he being not an active combatant but one imbued with the duty of detachment. CANON 3 A judge should perform official duties honestly, and with impartiality and diligence. ADJUDICATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES Rule 3.01 A judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence. A judge being the visible representative of the law must be a model for uprightness, fairness and honesty, and should be extracareful to avoid even the slightest infraction of the law for that will set a bad and demoralizing examples to others. Lopez vs. Fernandez Competence is a mark of a good judge. He should not stop studying for the law is dynamic. It grows and grows. Consequently, the judge should be conversant with the law and its amendments. Ajeno vs. Inserto, 7 SCRA 166 Even in the remaining years of his stay in the judiciary he should keep abreast with the changes in the law and with the latest decision and precedents. Service in the judiciary means a continuous study and research on the law from beginning to end. De la Cruz v. Concepcion, Adm. Matter No. RTJ-93-1062, August 25, 1994 To constitute gross ignorance of the law, the subject decision, order or actuation of the judge in the performance of his official duties must not only be contrary to existing law and jurisprudence but, most importantly, he must be moved by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty or corruption. People v. Gacott, Jr., G. R. No. 116049, March 20, 1995 Failure to check citations of pleadings is inexcusable negligence. Xxx xxx Judges should be reminded that courts are duty bound to take judicial notice of all the laws of the land (sec. 1 Rule 129). Being trier of facts, judges are presumed to be well-informed of existing laws, recent enactments and jurisprudence, in keeping with their sworn duty as members of the bar and bench to keep abreast of legal developments.

Rule 3.02 In every case, a judge shall endeavor diligently to ascertain the facts and the applicable law unswayed by partisan interests, public opinion or fear of criticism. The courts findings of facts must not be based on the personal knowledge of the judge but upon the evidence presented and offered in the case. If a judge has personal knowledge, he must offer himself a witness and let the case be transferred to another judge. Guidelines for Efficient Rendition of Judgment Or Judicial Opinion 1. The Judge should observe the usual and traditional method of dispensing justice, which requires that he should hear both sides with patience and understanding before he should render a decision (Casttillo vs. Juan, 62 SCRA 124). 2. The judge should decide a case impartially on the basis of the evidence presented and shall apply the applicable law as his guides (Bondoc vs. De Guzman, 57 SCRA 135). 3. The judge should state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which he based his judgment 4. The judge disposing of controverted cases should indicate his reasons for his opinions or conclusions to show that he did not disregard or overlook the serious arguments of the parties counsel. 5. The judge should make his decisions or opinions brief but complete in all the essentials. 6. If the personal view of the judge contradict the applicable doctrine promulgated by the Supreme Court, nonetheless, he should decide the case in accordance with that doctrine and not in accordance with his personal views. 7. The judge should decide cases promptly, that is, within the period required by law. 8. The signed judgment must be unconditionally filed with the Clerk of Court to have it considered within the 90-day deadline for rendering judgments. 9. Extreme care should be made in the making of the dispositive portion of the decision for that is the part of the decision which is to be implemented. Canon 18, CJE In deciding cases, a judge should apply the law to particular instances. He violates his duty as a minister of justice under a government of laws and not of men if he seeks to do what he may personally consider substantial justice in a particular case and disregards the law as he knows it to be binding upon him. Albert vs. Court of First Instance of Manila, 23 SCRA 948 (1968) If he feels that a law or doctrine enunciated by the Supreme Court is against his way of reasoning or his conscience, he may state his personal opinion on the matter but should decide the case in accordance with law or jurisprudence. Director of Prisons v. Ang Cho Kio, G. R. No. L-30001, June 23, 1970 xxx xxx decision of a court should contain only opinion that is relevant to the question that is before the court for decision. xxx courts are not concerned with the wisdom or morality of the laws, but only in the interpretation and application of the law. Canon 17, CJE In disposing of controverted cases, a judge should indicate the reasons for his action in opinions showing that he has not disregarded or overlooked serious arguments of counsel. He should show his full understanding of the case, avoid the suspicion of arbitrary conclusion, promote confidence in his intellectual integrity and contribute useful precedent to the growth of the law. People v. Veneracion, G. R. No. 119987-88, October 12, 1995 Xxx xxx obedience to the rule of law forms the bedrock of our system of justice. If judges, under the guise of religious or political beliefs were allowed to roam unrestricted beyond boundaries within which they are required by law to exercise the duties of their office, the law

becomes meaningless. A government of laws, not of men excludes the exercise of broad discretionary powers of those acting under is authority. Under this system, judges are guided by the Rule of Law, and ought to protect and enforce it without fear or favor, or even the interference of their own personal beliefs. Turqueza vs. Hernando, 97 SCRA 483 (1980) A judge whose order is challenged in an appellate court does not have to file any answer or take active part in the proceeding unless expressly directed by the appellate court. He is merely a nominal party to the case. It is the duty of the private respondent to appear and defend both in his behalf and in behalf of the court or judge whose order or decision is at issue. The judge should not waste his time taking an active part in the proceeding which relates his official actuations in a case, but should apply himself to his principal task of hearing and adjudicating the cases in his court. Rule 3.03. A judge shall maintain order and proper decorum in the court. The judge is one who looks, talks and dresses like one with decency and respectability. He is a complete gentleman (or gentlelady) proficient in law, upright, fearless, honest and dedicated to the cause of law as dispenser of justice. Proceedings in the court must be conducted formally and solemnly. The atmosphere must be characterized with honor and dignity befitting the seriousness and importance of a judicial trial. Rule 3.04. A judge should be patient, attentive and courteous to lawyers, especially the inexperienced, to litigants, witnesses, and others appearing before the court. A judge should avoid unconsciously falling into the attitude of mind that the litigants are made for the courts, instead of the courts for the litigants. In addressing counsel, litigants, or witnesses, the judge should avoid a controversial tone (Canon 14, CJE) or a tone that creates animosity. He should be considerate of witnesses and others in attendance in his court (Canon 9, CJE). Royeca vs. Animas, 71 SCRA 1 (1976) A judge without being arbitrary, unreasonable or unjust may endeavor to hold counsel to a proper appreciation of their duties to the courts, to their clients and to the adverse party and his lawyer, so as to enforce due diligence in the dispatch of business before the court. He may utilize this opportunities to criticize and correct unprofessional conduct of attorneys, brought to his attention, but he may not do so in an insulting manner. In re: Almacen, 31 SCRA 577 As citizen and officer of the court, every lawyer is expected not only to exercise the right but also to consider it his duty to expose the shortcomings and indiscretions of courts and judges. Rule 3.05. A judge shall dispose of the courts business promptly and decide cases within the required periods. Punctuality is a joint responsibility of both judges and lawyers, including court personnel like the stenographers and interpreters. A case is deemed submitted for decision not from the time the stenographic notes were transcribed. A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the Rules of Court or by the court itself. Castro vs. Malazo, 99 SCRA 165 We must once more impress upon the members of the Judiciary their sworn duty of administering justice without undue delay under the time-honored precept that justice delayed, is justice denied. Moya v. Tensuan, Adm. Matter No. 2507-CFI, August 10, 1981 Judges must be cautioned that it is not the date of signing the decision but the date of receipt of the Clerk of Court that must be reckoned from the date of submission of the case for decision in order to comply with the 90-day period xxx.

Salvador v. Salamanca, Adm. Matter No. R-177-MTJ, September 24, 1986 Judges should decide cases even if the parties failed to submit memoranda within the given periods. Non-submission of memoranda is not a justification for failure to decide cases. The filing of memoranda is not a part of the trial nor is the memorandum itself an essential, much less indispensable, pleading before a case may be submitted for decision. Query of Judge Danilo M. Tenerife, Admin. Matter No. 94-5-42-MTC, March 20, 1996 Delay in the transcription of stenographic notes by a stenographic reporter under the judges supervision and control cannot be considered a valid reason for delay in rendering judgment xxx xxx A judge cannot be allowed to blame his court personnel for his own incompetence or negligence xxx xxx Precisely, judges are directed to take down notes of salient portions of the hearing and proceed in the preparation of decisions without waiting for the transcribed stenographic notes, the 90-day period for deciding cases should be adhered to. Bolalin v. Occiano, A. M. No. MTJ-96-1104, January 14, 1997 If the case load of the judge prevents the disposition of cases within the prescribe period, he should ask for a reasonable extension of time from the Supreme Court. Rivera v. Lamorena, A.M. No. RTJ-97-1391, October 16, 1997 Xxx xxx The delay in resolving motions and incidents pending before a judge within the reglementary period of ninety (90) days fixed by the Constitution and the law is not excusable and constitutes gross inefficiency. Supreme Court almost always grants requests for extension of time to decide cases. A heavy caseload may excuse a judges failure to decide cases within the reglementary period; but not his or her failure to request an extension of time which to decide the same on time, (i.e. before the expiration of the period to be extended. Q. Judge X failed to act on a motion to dismiss a case. He contends that the delay was brought about by the failure of his staff to present him the ex-parte motion to resolve. Is the contention of Judge X valid? A. A judge cannot take refuge behind the inefficiency or mismanagement by court personnel. Proper and efficient court management is as much as his responsibility. It is also his duty to organize and supervise the court personnel to ensure the prompt and efficient dispatch of business. Rule 3.06. While a judge may, to promote justice, prevent waste of time or clear up some obscurity, properly intervene in the presentation of evidence during the trial, it should always be borne in mind that undue interference may prevent the proper presentation of the cause or the ascertainment of truth. Valdez vs. Aquilizan, 133 SCRA 150 A judge may properly intervene to expedite and prevent unnecessary waste of time. He may intervene to profound clarificatory questions, but should limit himself only to clarificatory questions and not to ask searching questions after the witness had given direct testimony. People vs. Catindihan, 97 SCRA 679 When a judge may intervene to clear some obscurity or prevent waste of time, the same must be done with considerable circumspection. There will be undue interference if the judge will extensively profound questions to the witnesses, which will have the effect of or will tend to build or bolster the case for one of the parties. Canon 14, CJE A judge should avoid interruptions of counsel in their arguments except to clarify his mind as to their positions, and he should not be tempted to an unnecessary display of learning or a premature judgment. (Canons of Judicial Ethics) interference in conduct of trial. While a judge may properly intervene in a trial of a case to promote expedition and prevent unnecessary waste of time, or to clear

up some obscurity, nevertheless, he should bear in mind that his undue interference, impatience, or participation in the examination of witness, or a severe attitude on his part towards witnesses, especially those who are excited or terrified by the unusual circumstances of trial, may tend to prevent the proper presentation of the cause, or the ascertainment of the truth in respect thereto. Judges are not mere referees like those of a boxing bout they should have as mush interest as counsel in the orderly and expeditious presentation of evidence, calling the attention of counsel to points at issue that are overlooked, directing them to ask the question that would elicit the facts on the issues invoked, clarifying ambiguous remarks of witnesses (People vs. Ihasan, 129 SCRA 695). Rule 3.07. A judge should abstain from making public commitments on any pending or impending case and should require similar restraint on the part of the court personnel. A judge must hear both sides before he should attempt to make any conclusion on the issues of a case which conclusion could be the basis of his written judgment. It is dangerous for a judge to make comments, specially publicly, of pending cases before his court or even impending cases such as those publicly known and anticipated to be filed in court having been subjected of wide publicity or sensationalized in the media. ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES Rule 3.08. A judge should diligently discharge administrative responsibilities, maintain professional competence in court management, and facilitate the performance of the administrative functions of other judges and court personnel. The judge is the administrator of his court. He is responsible for the administrative management thereof. He supervises the court personnel to ensure prompt and efficient dispatch of business in his court. Request of Judge Eduardo F. Cartagena, A.M. no. 95-9-98-MCTC, December 4, 1997 Requests for permission to travel abroad on official time should not be presumed granted by the Supreme Court. Xxx xxx A judge who departs for abroad without the knowledge, let alone the permission, of the Court violates Memorandum Order No. 264 which mandates the requests for permission to travel abroad from members and employees of the judiciary should be obtained from the Supreme Court. Buenaventura vs. Benedicto, 38 SCRA 71 The Supreme Court found the inclination of the respondent judge to leniency in the administrative supervision of his employees an undesirable trait. Shan vs. Aguinaldo, 117 SCRA 32 For his failure to perform his duties, the judge cannot use as excuse the negligence or malfeasance of his own employees. Nidua vs. Lazaro, 174 SCRA 581 The employees are not guardians of the judges responsibilities. Instead of being obstructive, he should help facilitate the performance of the administrative functions of other judges and court personnel. He must coordinate and cooperate with the other judges specially judges of higher courts and other judges gearing toward an efficient and prompt dispensation of justice. Ysasi vs. Fernandez, 26 SCRA 395 Judges should respect the orders and decisions of an appellate court. Refusal to honor and injunctive order of the Supreme Court constitutes contempt. Hernandez vs. Colayco, 64 SCRA 480 Judges should respect resolutions of the Supreme Court. Vivo vs. Cloribel, 18 SCRA 713 They should take cognizance of settled rulings of the Supreme Court.

De Leon vs. Salvador, 36 SCRA 567 Judges should not interfere with the orders and decisions of judges of co-equal courts. Rule 3. 09. A judge should organize and supervise the court personnel to ensure the prompt and efficient dispatch of burdens, and require at all times the observance of high standards of public service and fidelity. Tan v. Madayag, Adm. Matter No. RTJ-93-995, March 11, 1994 A judge cannot take refuge behind the inefficiency or mismanagement of his court personnel. Proper and efficient court management is definitely his responsibility. Canon 8, Canons of Judicial Ethics A judge must properly organize in court to ensure prompt and convenient dispatch of its business. SC Circular No. 13 dated July 31, 1987, par. 4 (a) A judge should closely supervise court personnel so that adequate precautions are taken in sending out subpoenas, summons and court processes to ensure that they are timely served and received. The judge must require his personnel to observe at all times the observance of high standards of public service and fidelity, which he could well do, by example. Paredes vs. Padua, A.M. CA-91-3-P (May 17, 1993) Court personnel must adhere to the high ethical standards to preserve the Courts good name and standing. Rule 3.10. A judge should take or initiate appropriate disciplinary measure against lawyers or court personnel for unprofessional conduct of which the judge may have become aware. The judge may summarily punish any person including lawyers and court personnel, for direct contempt for misbehavior committed in the presence of or so near a court or a judge as to obstruct or interrupt the proceedings before the same (Rule 71, RRC). He may also punish any person for indirect contempt after appropriate charge and hearing who is guilty of the acts enumerated under Section 3, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court. Every court has the inherent power among others, to preserve and enforce orders in its immediate presence, to compel obedience to its judgments, orders and processes and to control, in furtherance of justice, the conduct of its ministerial officers (Section 5, Rule 135, RRC). Dallay-Papa vs. Almora, 110 SCRA 376 Although a judge has the power to recommend for appointment court personnel, however, he has no power to dismiss them. The power to dismiss a court employee is vested in the Supreme Court. Rule 3.11. A judge should appoint commissioners, receivers, trustees, guardians, administrators, and others on the basis of merit and qualifications avoiding nepotism and favoritism. Unless otherwise allowed by law, the same criterion should be observed in recommending the appointment of court personnel. Where the payment of just compensation is allowed, it should be reasonable and commensurate with the fair value of services rendered. Canon 11, CJE In appointing such persons, he must be guided strictly by merits and qualification of the applicants that is, on the basis of their character, ability and competency. There must be no room for nepotism and favoritism. Art. 244, Revised Penal Code Any public officer who shall knowingly nominate or appoint to any public office any person lacking the legal qualification therefore shall be guilty of unlawful appointment punishable with imprisonment and fine.

DISQUALIFICATIONS Rule 3.12. A judge should take no part in a proceeding where the judges impartiality might be reasonably questioned. These cases include, among others, proceedings where: a. the judge has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding; b. the judge served as executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or lawyer of the case of matters in controversy, or a former associate of the judge served as counsel during their association, or the judge or lawyer was a material witness therein; c. the judge ruling in a lower court is a subject of review; d. the judge is related by consanguinity or affinity to a party litigant within the sixth degree or to counsel within the fourth degree; e. the judge knows that the judges spouse or child has a financial interest as heirs, legatee, auditor, fiduciary, or otherwise, in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceedings, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding. 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. In every instance, the judge shall indicate the legal reason for inhibition. Mateo vs. Villaluz, 50 SCRA 18, Castillo vs. Juan, 62 SCRA 127 A litigant is entitled to no less than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge. Due process cannot be satisfied in the absence of that degree or objectivity on the part of a judge sufficient to reassure litigants of his being fair and just. When the judge has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts, he will lose that degree of objectivity. The tendency will be for him to decide the case based on his personal knowledge and not necessarily on the basis of the evidence presented and offered by the parties. His objectivity is therefore impaired. Consequently, the rule of fairness demands of him that he should take no part in the case and let another judge hear and decide it. Gutierrez vs. Santos, 112 Phil. 184 (1961) The rule on disqualification of a judge, whether compulsory or voluntary, to hear a case finds its rationale in the salutary principle that no judge should preside in a case which he is not wholly free, disinterested, impartial and independent, which is aimed at preserving the peoples faith and confidence in the courts of justice. Aparicio vs. Andal, 175 SCRA 569 (1989) The mere filing of an administrative case against a judge is not a ground for disqualifying him from hearing the case. For if on every occasion the party apparently aggrieved would be allowed to either stop the proceeding in order to await the final decision on the desired disqualification, or demand the immediate inhibition of the judge on the basis alone of his being so charged, many cases would have to be kept pending or perhaps there would not be enough judges to handle all the cases pending in all courts. The Court has to be shown, other than the filing of the administrative complaint, acts or conduct of the judge clearly indicative of arbitrariness or prejudice before the latter can be branded the stigma of being biased or partial. Cf. Austria vs. Masaquel, 20 SCRA 1247 A judge should disqualify himself when a former associate served as counsel in the case during their association. Ignacio vs. Villaluz, 90 SCRA 16 Due process requirements cannot be satisfied in the absence of that degree of objectivity on the part of a judge sufficient to reassure litigants of his being fair and just. Government vs. Heirs of Abella, 49 Phil. 374 A petition to disqualify a judge must be filed before rendition of judgment by the judge. Alexander Howden vs. Collector of Internal Revenue, 13 SCRA 601 It must first be presented to him for his determination. It cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.

Admn. Matter: Constante Pimentel, 85 SCRA 41 The objection of the competency of a judge must be filed with him in writing but not in an unverified letter. The judge will then determine his competency. Pimentel vs. Salanga, 21 SCRA 160 Xxx If a litigant is denied a fair and impartial trial, induced by the judges bias or prejudice, we will not hesitate to order a new trial, if necessary, in the interest of justice. Joaquin vs. Barreto, 25 Phil. 28 If the judge disqualifies or inhibits himself, he must state the legal reason therefore. This is important because, if any party wishes to question the Order, the appellate court can take cognizance thereof and can review the soundness or unsoundness of the reason for disqualification or inhibition. Albos v. Alaba, Adm. Matter NO. MTJ-1517, March 11, 1994 A judge is bound never to consider lightly a motion for his inhibition that questions or puts to doubt, however insignificant, his supposed predilection to a case pending before him. While he must exercise great prudence and utmost caution in considering and evaluating a challenge to his impartiality, he is expected, nevertheless, to act with good dispatch. Any delay, let alone an inaction, on his part can only fuel, whether justified or not, an intensified distrust on his capability to render dispassionate judgment on the case. Parayno v. Meneses, G.R. No. 112684, April 26, 1994 Xxx A judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion, inhibit himself voluntary from sitting in a case, but it should be based on good sound or ethical grounds, or for just and valid reasons. Xxx it is the judges sacred duty to administer justice without fear or favor.

DISQUALIFICATION INHIBITION 1. Rule on disqualification numerates the grounds under which any judge or judicial officer is disqualified from acting as such an the express enumeration therein of such grounds exclude the others. 1. Rule does not expressly enumerate the specific grounds for inhibition but merely gives a broad basis thereof, i.e. good, sound or ethical grounds. 2. Rule gives the judicial officer no discretion to try to sit in a case. 2. Rule leaves the matter of inhibition to the sound discretion of the judge.

Q. Judge X is a deacon in the INK church. Y, a member of the same religious sect belonging to the same INK filed a case against Z who belongs to the El Shaddai Charismatic group. The case was raffled to Judge Xs sala. The lawyer of Z filed a motion to disqualify Judge X on the ground that since he and the plaintiff belonged to the same religious sect, Judge X would possess the cold neutrality of an impartial judge. Judge X denied the motion since the reason involved for his disqualification was not among the grounds for disqualification under the Rule of Code of Judicial Conduct. Was Judge Xs denial of motion for inhibition well-founded? A. YES. The fact that the Judge X and litigant Y both belong to INK while litigant Z belongs to El Shaddai group, is not mandatory ground for disqualifying Judge X from presiding over the case. The motion for his inhibition is addressed to his sound discretion and he should exercise the same in a way the peoples faith in the courts of justice is not impaired.

REMITTAL OF DISQUALIFICATION Rule 3.13. A judge disqualified by the terms of Rule 3.12 may, instead of withdrawing from the proceeding, disclosure on the record the basis of qualification. If, based on such disclosure, the parties and lawyers independently of the judges participation, all agree in writing that the reason for inhibition is immaterial or insubstantial, the judge may then participate in the proceeding. The agreement, signed by all parties and lawyers, shall be incorporated in the record of the proceeding.

The judge must maintain and preserve the trust and faith of the parties litigants. He must hold himself above reproach and suspicion. At the very first sign of lack of faith and trust to his actions, whether well grounded or not, the Judge has no other alternative but inhibit himself from the case. Note: xxx a judge, otherwise disqualified by the terms of 3.12 has the option of inhibiting himself from the proceedings or simply disclosing the presence of any of the grounds enumerated in Rule 3.12. The parties and their lawyer may agree, in writing, to allow the judge to participate in the proceeding. CANON 4: A judge may, with due regard to official duties, engage in activities to improve the law, the Legal System and the Administration of justice. PARTICIPATION IN PRIVATE DEALINGS Rule 4.01. A judge may, to the extent that the following activities do not impair the performance of judicial duties or cast doubt on the judges impartiality: a. speak, write, lecture, teach, or participate activities concerning the law, the legal system and the administration of justice; b. appear at a public hearing before a legislative or executive body on matters concerning the law, the legal system or the administration of justice and otherwise consult with them on matters concerning the administration of justice; c. serve on any organization devoted to the improvement of the law, the legal system or the administration of justice. Ultimately the decision to engage in the aforementioned activities will depend upon the sound judgment of the judge as he is in the best position to know his ability, competence and weaknesses. Albos v. Alaba, supra Xxx xxx judges are, as they should be, encouraged to engage in any lawful enterprise that may help bring about an improved administration of justice. But, as that it may, judges must not allow themselves to be thereby distracted from the performance of their judicial tasks which must remain at all times to be their foremost and overriding concern. CANON 5 A judge should regulate extra-judicial activities to minimize the risk of Conflict with Judicial Duties A VOCATIONAL, CIVIC AND CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES 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: a. write, lecture, teach, speak on non-legal subjects; 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-political educational, religious, charitable, fraternal or civic organization. If they opt to engage in such activities, they must learn how to manage their time in such manner that their judicial responsibilities do not falter and suffer. Judges cannot serve as officers or advisers of political aggrupations and organizations established for profit. Judges must refrain from partisan political activities and organizations for profit. Otherwise, he will be forced to advance the interests of these organizations through the use of his office or influence. Canon 24, CJE While judges may participate in civic and charitable activities, they are not allowed to solicit donations for such activities. He should not use the power of his office or the influence of his name to promote the business interests of others. He should not solicit for charities. Q: S was a judge and the publisher/columnist for a tabloid, he was also a writer for another paper. G charged him with using his columns to ventilate his views. He has repeatedly used insulting and inflammatory language against the governor, provincial prosecutor and legal adviser.

Decide. A: While S has the right to free speech, his writing of vicious editorials compromises his duties as judge in the impartial administration of justice. They reflect on his office and on the officers he ridicules. The personal behavior of a judge in his professional and everyday life should be free from the appearance of impropriety as such conduct erodes public confidence in the judiciary. (Galang vs. Santos, 307 SCRA 562). FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES Rule 5.02. A judge shall refrain from financial and business dealings: 1. that tend to reflect adversely on the courts impartiality; 2. that interfere with the proper performance of judicial activities; or 3. that increase involvement with lawyers or persons likely to come before the court. Note: Interpreting the above rule, judges therefore, are not prohibited from having financial and business dealings. However, they must ever be mindful of circumstances described in the same rule which could render their financial and business dealings unethical. Canon 25, CJE A judge should abstain from making personal investments which are apt to be involved in litigation in his court; and, after accession 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. Buenaventura vs. Benedict, 38 SCRA 71 Section 24 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics requires a judge to refrain from private business ventures or charitable enterprises so as not to give occasion any suspicion that he utilizes the power of his office or the influence of his name for the success of such undertakings or to give rise to any situation wherein his personal interest might conflict with the impartial performance of his official duties. Macariola vs. Asuncion, 14 SCRA 81 Xxx there is no provision in both in 1935 and 1973 Constitutions of the Philippines, nor is there an existing law expressly prohibiting members of the Judiciary from engaging or having interest in any lawful business. The 1987 Constitution and the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 have no provisions prohibiting judges from engaging in business. Javier vs. De Guzman, 192 SCRA 434 (1991) He violates this canon where he lends money at conscionable interests and files suit for collection at the place where he is judge, to enable him to take advantage of his position. Such action merits severe reprimand. Rule 5.03. Subject to the provisions of the proceeding 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. Note: xxx that a judge is allowed to remain a director of the judges family business, but not to serve as officer, manager, advisor, or employee thereof. Q: E posted an advertisement on the RTC bulletin board for waitress and singers to work at his restaurant. He was later caught when a reporter from Hoy Gising! taped an interview which revealed that he intended to operate a drinking pub with scantily clad waitresses. Decide. A: A judge should avoid impropriety and even the mere appearance of impropriety. He should also refrain from financial or business dealings that tend to reflect adversely on the courts impartiality, interfere with the proper performance of judicial activities, or increase involvement with lawyers or litigants. He should also manage his financial interests so as to minimize the number of cases giving grounds for disqualification. Finally, the halls of justice should not be used for unrelated purposes. (Dionisio vs. Escano, 302 SCRA 411) Under RA 3019:Sec. 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. In addition to acts or omission of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared as unlawful: (h) Directly or indirectly having financial or pecuniary interest in any business, contract or transaction in connection with which he intervenes or takes part in his official capacity or in which he is prohibited by any law from having any interest.

PROHIBITION UNDER THE REVISED PENAL CODE Art. 215. Prohibited Transactions. The penalty of prision correccional. In its minimum period or a fine ranging from P200 to P1,000 or both shall be imposed upon any appointive public officer who, during his incumbency, shall directly or indirectly become interested in any transaction of exchange or speculation within the territory subject to his jurisdiction. Art. 216. Possession of Prohibited interest by public officer. The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period, or a fine ranging from P200 to P1,000 or both shall be imposed upon a public officer who, directly or indirectly, shall become interested in any contract or business which it is his official duty to intervene. Rule 5.04. A judge or any immediate member of the family shall not accept a gift, bequest, favor or loan from anyone except as may be allowed by law. It is a good policy for any judge to advise his immediate relatives of this prohibition. It is equally advisable that a judge should warn his relatives from being engaged or used from being intermediaries by party-litigants who have pending cases in his court. Acceptance of gifts given by reason of the office of the judge is indirect bribery (Art. 211, RPC) and when he agrees to perform an act constituting a crime in connection with the performance of his official duties in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present received by such offer, he is guilty of direct bribery (Art. 210, RPC). Section 14, R.A. 3019 The judge is liable criminally or directly or indirectly receiving gifts, present or other pecuniary or material benefit, for himself or for another under conditions provided in Section 2, (b) and (c) of the law. Exception: Excepted are unsolicited gifts or presents of small value offered or given as a mere ordinary token of gratitude or friendship according to local custom or usage. Ompoc vs. Torres, 178 SCRA 15 It is a serious misconduct for a judge to receive money from a litigant in the form of loans which he never intended to pay back. Even if the judge intends to pay, it is an act of impropriety to take a loan from a party-litigant. VOID DONATIONS UNDER THE CIVIL CODE Donations given to a judge or to his wife, descendants or ascendants by reason of his office are void (Art. 739, Civil Code). Ownership does not pass to the donee. Money or property donated is recoverable by the donor, his heirs or creditors. Rule 5.05. 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. The judge may be liable for violation of Section 3 (k) of R.A. No. 3019 (k) Divulging valuable information of a confidential character, acquired by his office or by him on account of his personal position to authorized persons, or releasing such information in advance of its authorized release due. Violation of the Rule may also lead to revelation of secrets by an officer or to revelation of the secrets of a private individual punishable by Arts. 229 and 230 of the Revised Penal Code respectively. FIDUCIARY ACTIVITIES Rule 5.06. A judge should not serve as the executor, administrator, trustee, guardian or any other fiduciary, except for the estate, trust, 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. Member of immediate family shall be limited to the spouse and relatives within the second degree of consanguinity. As a family fiduciary, a judge shall

not: 1. serve in proceeding that might come before the court of said judge; or 2. act as such as contrary to Rule 5.02 to 5.05. Note: The relationship mentioned is by consanguinity and not by affinity. PRACTICE OF LAW AND OTHER PROFESSION Rule 5.07. 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. What is basically prohibited as judges is to practice law. Judges however, may engage in other lawful professions (other than the practice of law) as long as they are not prohibited by the Constitution or by law. Even then, judges must still refrain from engaging in such other professions if such engagement will conflict with their judicial functions. Dia-Anonuevo vs. Bercacio, 68 SCRA 81 The rule disqualifying a municipal judge from engaging in the practice of law seeks to avoid the evil possible use of the power and influence of his office to affect the outcome of a litigation where he is retained as counsel. Compelling reasons of public policy lie behind this prohibition, and judges are expected to conduct themselves in such a manner as to preclude suspicion that they are representing the interests of party-litigant. 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, and giving of legal advice to clients or persons needing the same. A. B. A. Op. 143 (May 9, 1935) A judge should not engage in the practice of private law, nor permit a law firm, of which he was formerly an active member, to continue to carry his name in the firm name because that might create the impression that the firm possesses an improper influence with the judge and in consequence, tend to impel those in need of legal services in connection with matters before the judge employ them. Balayon Jr. vs. Judge Ocampo, A.M. No. MTJ-91-619 (January 29, 1993) It is well settled that municipal judges may not engage in notarial work except as notaries as public ex-officio. As notaries publicofficio, they may engage only in the notarization of documents connected with the exercise of their official functions. They may not, as such notaries public officio, undertake the preparation and acknowledgment of private documents, contracts and other acts of conveyance, which bear no relation to the performance of their functions as judges. However, taking judicial notice of the fact that there are still municipalities which have neither lawyers nor notaries public, the Supreme Court ruled that MTC and MCTC judges assigned to municipalities or circuits with lawyers or notaries public may, in their capacity as notaries public ex-officio, perform any act within the competency of a regular notary public, provided that: 1. all notarial fees charged be for the account of the Government and turned-over to the municipal treasurer and 2. certification be made in the notarized documents attesting to the lack of any lawyer or notary public in such municipality or circuit.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE Rule 5.08 A judge shall make full financial disclosure as required by law. Every public officer, including judges are required to file a true, detailed and sworn statement of assets and liabilities including statement of the amounts and services of income, the amounts of their personal and family expenses and the amount of income taxes paid for the next preceding calendar year. EXTRA-JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS Rule 5.09 A judge shall not accept appointment or designation to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions.

Section 12, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution The members of the Supreme Court and of other courts established by law shall not be designated to any agency performing quasijudicial or administrative functions. POLITICAL ACTIVITIES Rule 5.10 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 for political office or participate in other partisan political activities. Canon 27, CJE A judge, as a citizen is entitled to entertain political views on political issues. However, to avoid suspicion of political partisanship, he should not make political speeches, contribute funds, publicly endorse candidates for political office or participate in political partisan activities. Vistan vs. Nicolas, 201 SCRA 524 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. COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT All judges shall comply strictly with this Code.

LIABILITIES OF JUDGES Section II, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution The members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall hold office during a good behavior until they reach the age of seventy years or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office. The Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to discipline judges of lower courts, or order their dismissal by a vote of majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted therein. ADMINISTRATIVE LIABILITIES Grounds for administrative cases against Judges: 1. serious misconduct 2. inefficiency In re: Impeachment of Horilleno, 43 Phil. 212 Misconduct implies malice or a wrongful intent, not a mere error of judgment. For serious misconduct to exist, there must be a reliable evidence showing that the judicial acts complained of were corrupt or were inspired by an intention to violate the law, or were in persistent disregard of well-known legal rules. In re: Climaco, Adm. Case no. 134-J (Jan. 21, 1974) 55 SCRA 107 Inefficiency implies negligence, ignorance and carelessness. A judge would be inexcusably negligent if he failed to observe in the performance of his duties that diligence, prudence and circumspection which the law requires in the rendition of any public service. a. Serious misconduct or inefficiency: Misconduct wrongful intention and not mere error in judgment (Raquiza vs. Castaneda, 82 SCRA 235) Serious Misconduct exists when the judicial act complained of is corrupt or inspired by an intention to violate the law or a persistent disregard of well-known legal rules. (Galangi vs. Macli-ing, Adm. Matter No. 75-DJ, Jan. 17, 1978) Serious Inefficiency an example is negligence in the performance of duty, if reckless in character (Lapena vs. Collado, 76 SCRA 82).

Q: Upon retirement, B left 7 criminal cases and 3 civil cases undecided within the 90-day period required by Section 15, Article VII of the Constitution. He says it was due to serious illness. May he be disciplined? A: Members of the bench have a duty to administer justice without undue delay. Failure to do so within the reglamentary period constitutes a neglect of duty warranting administrative penalties. If hindered by illness, a judge should inform the Office of the Court Administrator and ask for additional time in order to avoid the sanctions. However, if there is no malice or bad faith, and the judge is prevented by factors beyond his control, the penalty will be mitigated. (Re: Cases Left Undecided by Judge Narciso M. Bumanglag Jr., 306 SCRA 50). b. Error or Ignorance of Law: - Error or mistake must be gross or patent, malicious, deliberate or in bad faith. - Must act fraudulently, corruptly or with gross ignorance. Caveat: not every error or mistake of a judge in the performance of his duties make him liable therefore. To hold the judge administratively accountable for every erroneous ruling or decision he renders, assuming he has erred, would be nothing short of harassment and would make his position unbearable. (Secretary of Justice vs. Marcos, 76 SCRA 301). Aurillo vs. Francisco, 235 SCRA 238 (1994) If the law is so elementary, not to know it or to act as if one does not know it, constitutes ignorance of the law. A judge who disregards basic rules and settled jurisprudence shows gross ignorance of law. Ignorance of the law, which everyone is bound to know, excuses no one not even judges. Ignorantia juris quod quisque scire tenetur non excusat. Bengzon vs. Adaoag, 250 SCRA 344 (1995) To warrant a finding of ignorance of the law and abuse of authority, the error must be so gross and patent as to produce an inference of ignorance or bad faith or that the judge knowingly rendered an unjust decision. The error must be grave and on so fundamental a point as to warrant condemnation of the judge as patently ignorant or negligent. Buenaventura vs. Garcia, 187 SCRA 598 (1990) A judge who dismissed a rape case upon desistance of the 11-year-old rape victim and who allowed compromise of said case with his intervention by the accused paying the victim is guilty of gross ignorance of the law and knowingly rendering an unjust judgment, liable for dismissal from the service, for as judge he should have known that the victims consent in a statutory rape is invalid and the compromise is an admission of guilt and his participation therein is unbecoming of a judge. State Prosecutors vs. Muro, 251 SCRA 111 (1995) Egregious legal error, legal error motivated by bad faith, or a continuing pattern of legal error, on the part of a judge does amount to misconduct which may be subject to discipline. A legal error is egregious and serious enough to amount to misconduct when judges deny individuals their basic or fundamental rights, such as when defendants were not advised of their constitutional rights to counsel, coerced to plead guilty, sentenced to jail when only a fine is provided by law, sentenced to jail for a period longer than the maximum sentence allowed by law, or when defendant or the prosecution was denied a full and fair hearing. A judges act of motu proprio dismissing a criminal case for violation of foreign exchange restrictions, without waiting for the defense to file a motion to quash or without affording the prosecution the opportunity to be heard on the matter, constitutes gross ignorance of law calling for his dismissal. Revita vs. Rimando, 98 SCRA 619 (1980) A judge may not be disciplined for error of judgment, unless there is proof that the error was attributable to a conscious and deliberate intent to perpetrate an injustice. For as a matter of public policy, in the absence of fraud, dishonesty or corruption, the acts of a judge in his official capacity are not subject to disciplinary action, even though such acts are erroneous. This does not mean, however, that he should not evince due care in performing his adjudicatory prerogatives.

Filipinas Bank vs. Tirona-Liwag, 190 SCRA 834 (1990) Good faith and absence of malice, corrupt motives or improper consideration are sufficient defenses protecting a judicial officer charged with ignorance of the law and promulgation of an unjust decision from being held accountable for errors of judgment on the premise that no one called upon to try the facts or interpret the law in the administration of justice can be infallible.

Vistan v. Nicolas, Adm. Matter No. MTJ-87-79, September 13, 1991 Judges may be disciplined only by the Supreme Court. The applicable procedural rule is Rule 140, Rules of Court. Procedure (Rule 140) 6. Complaint, in writing and duly sworn to, is filed with the Supreme Court (sec.1) 7. If found meritorious, a copy thereof shall be served on the respondent and he shall be required to comment within 10 days of service (sec. 6) 8. Upon filing of respondents comments or expiration of the period for filing comment, the Supreme Court either refers to matter to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for evaluation, report, and recommendation, or assigns a Justice of the Court of Appeals (if respondent is an RTC judge) or a judge of the RTC (if respondent is a judge of an inferior court) to investigate and hear the charges (sec.7) 9. After hearings, the investigating justice or judge submits a report of findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendations to the Supreme Court (sec.8) 10. The Supreme Court takes action as the facts and the law may warrant (sec. 9) Proceedings shall be private and confidential but a copy of the decision or resolution of the Court shall be attached to the record of the judge in the Office of the Court Administrator. (sec. 11) .Suerte vs. Ugbinar, 75 SCRA 69 (1977) Impeachment proceedings against judges are penal in nature and are governed by the rules applicable to criminal cases. The charges must, therefore, be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Principle of Res Ipsa Loquitor (the things speak for itself) A judge may be dismissed even without formal investigation, if based on the records, his liability is clear and unquestionable. Note: The doctrine of res ipsa loquitor does not and cannot dispense with the twin requirement of due process, i.e. notice and the opportunity to be heard. It merely dispenses with the procedure laid down In Rule 140 of the Rules of Court. Q. May Judge Bautista be disciplined by the Supreme Court based solely on a complaint filed by the complainant and the answer of respondent Judge? If so, under what circumstances? What is the rationale behind this power of the Supreme Court? A. Yes, where the facts of record sufficiency provide the basis for the determination of the lawyers administrative liability he may be disciplined or disbarred by the SC without further inquiry or investigation. A pre-trial hearing is not necessary the respondent having been fully heard in his pleading. The principle or doctrine applies to both judges or lawyers. Judges had been dismissed from the service without need for a formal investigation because base on the records, the gross misconduct of inefficiency of the judges clearly appears. (Uy vs. Mercado, 154 SCRA, 567)

WITHDRAWAL, DESISTANCE, RETIREMENT or PARDON Anguluan vs. Taguba, 93 SCRA 179 The withdrawal of the case by the complainant, or the filing of an affidavit of desistance or the complainants loss of interest does not necessarily cause the dismissal thereof. Reason: To condition administrative actions upon the will of every complainant who for one reason or another, condones a detestable act is to strip the Supreme Court of its supervisory power to discipline erring members of the judiciary. Espayos vs. Lee, 89 SCRA 478 Desistence will not justify the dismissal of an administrative case if the records will reveal that the judge had not performed his duties.

Pesole vs. Rodriguez, 81 SCRA 208 In certain cases, the acceptance by the President of respondents courtesy resignation does not necessarily render the case moot or deprive Us of the authority to investigate the charges. xxx Each case is to be resolved and in the context of the circumstances present thereat. Thus, we explained: The court retains its jurisdiction either to pronounce the respondent official innocent of the charges or declare him guilty thereof. A contrary rule would be fraught with injustices and pregnant with dreadful and dangerous implications. xxx If innocent, respondent official merits vindication of his name and integrity as he leaves the government which he has served well and faithfully: if guilty, he deserves to receive corresponding censure and a penalty proper and imposable under the situation. Office of the Court Administrator v. Sumilang, et al., A.M. No. MTJ-94-989, April 18, 1997 Where a judge who has been found guilty of gross misconduct and conduct unbecoming a judge retires during the pendency of the action the proper penalty must be imposed, in lieu of removal from office, is forfeiture of all retirement benefits. Monsanto vs. Palanca, 126 SCRA 45 (1982) Abolition of a respondent judges judicial position does not necessarily render the administrative case for acts committed during his incumbency moot and academic, nor preclude his being held-liable in his present judicial position, where the charges are so serious that they affect his competency and integrity of a judge. Icasiano v. Sandiganbayan, G. R. No. 95642; May 28, 1992 Administrative proceedings against judges are distinct from criminal proceedings. Hence, prosecution in one is not a bar to the other. Xxx xxx When the Supreme Court acts on complaints against judges, it acts as personnel administrator, imposing discipline and not as a court judging justiciable controversies. Note, therefore, that the administrative proceedings for the removal of the erring judge and criminal proceedings against him for the same offense can proceed independently of each other. Maceda v. Vasquez, G.R. No. 102781, April 22, 1993 Where a criminal complaint against a judge or other court employee arises from their administrative duties as judge or as a court employee, the Ombudsman before whom a complaint is filed, must defer action on such complaint and refer this to the Supreme Court for determination whether said judge or court employee had acted within the scope of his administrative duties. Bartolome v. de Borja, 71 SCRA 153 While dismissal of criminal case does not absolve respondent judge from a charge that he acted irregularly in the performance of his official duties, administrative proceedings are in the nature highly penal in character and are to be governed by the rules of law applicable to criminal cases. The charges must, therefore, be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Balayon vs. Ocampo, 218 SCRA 13 (1993) There must be reliable evidence showing that the judicial acts complained of were corrupt or inspired by an intention to violate the law, or were in persistent disregard of well-known legal rules. Del Callar v. Salvador, A.M. No. RTJ-97-1369, February 17. 1997 Judges may not be held administratively liable for every error or mistake in the performance of their duties. To merit disciplinary action, the error or mistake must be gross or patent, malicious, deliberate, or in bad faith. In the absence of proof of the contrary, erroneous decisions or orders are presumed to have been issued in good faith. Secretary of Justice vs. Bullecer, supra. 61 SCRA 13 (1974) Like misconduct, inefficiency as a ground for disciplinary action must be serious or one which is weighty or momentous and not trifling. Negligence in the performance of duty, if reckless in character, could amount to serious or inexcusable inefficiency. Salcedo vs. Inting, 91 SCRA 19 To warrant disciplinary action, the act of the judge must have a direct relation to the performance of his official duties. It is necessary to separate the character of the man from the character of the officer. Cabillo vs. Celis, 83 SCRA 620 The charge against him must be established by convincing proof. The records must show as free from any doubt a case which compels the imposition of disciplinary action. Xxx xxx for a judge to be rendered capable in any administrative proceeding, there should be a

clear and sufficient evidence of his misconduct. Raquiza vs. Castaneda, Jr., 81 SCRA 236 The rules even in an administrative case demands that even if respondent judge should be disciplined for grave misconduct or any grave offense, the evidence presented against him should be competent and derived from direct knowledge, and that before a judge could be faulted, it should be only after due investigation and based on competent proofs, no less. This is all the more so when as in this case the charges are penal in nature. Icasiano v. Sandiganbayan, supra Note: This pronouncement must be taken with caution in the light of other Court pronouncements on the nature of administrative proceedings in relation to criminal proceedings, i.e., that while the latter requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, the former requires only substantial evidence. Instances of Serious Misconduct Which Merited Discipline by the Supreme Court: 1. Failure to deposit funds with the municipal treasurer or produce them despite his promise to do so (Montemayor vs. Collado, 107 SCRA 258). 2. Misappropriation of fiduciary funds (proceeds of cash bail bond) by depositing the check in his personal account, thus converting the trust fund into his own use (Barja vs. Beracio, 74 SCRA 355). 3. Extorting money from a party-litigant who has a case before his court (Haw Tay vs. Singayao, 154 SCRA 107). 4. Solicitation of donation for office equipment (Lecaroz vs. Garcia). 5. Frequent unauthorized absences in office (Municipal Council of Casiguruhan, Quezon vs. Morales, 61 SCRA 13). 6. Falsification of Certificate of Service to collect salary (Secretary of Justice vs. Legaspi, 107 SCRA 233). 7. Declaring Wednesdays as non-session days which the judge declared as his mid-week pause (In re: Echiverri, 67 SCRA 467). 8. Indefinite postponement for several years of a criminal case pending in his sala (Bulan vs. Cardenas, 101 SCRA 788). 9. Judge poking his gun to another in a restaurant while in a state of intoxication (De la paz vs. Inutan, 64 SCRA 540). 10. Pistol-whipping the complainant on the latters left face without any justification (Arban vs. Borja, 143 SCRA 634). 11. Acting as counsel and/or attorneyin-fact for all the parties with opposing interests on a parcel of land in pursuance of his personal selfinterest (Candia vs. Tagabucba, 79 SCRA 51). 12. Using intemperate language unbecoming of a judge (Santos vs. Cruz, 100 SCRA 538). 13. Failure to reply to a show cause resolution of the Supreme Court (Longboan vs. Polig, 186 SCRA 557). 14. Inaction by judge which is tantamount to partiality in favor of one party (Ubarra vs. Tecson, 134 SCRA 4). 15. Serious act of dishonesty in appropriating the money of complainants for his personal use (Sarmiento vs. Cruz, 65 SCRA 289). 16. Preparation and notarization of an immoral and illegal agreement providing for the personal separation of husband and wife (Selanova vs. Mendoza, 64 SCRA 69). 17. Decision not prepared personally by the judge (Lim vs. Vacante, 69 SCRA 376). 18. Sitting in a case where he is legally disqualified by reason of the appearance of his nephew-in-law as counsel for the defendant (Evangelista vs. Baes, 61 SCRA 475).

19. Failure to inform the Supreme Court that he had two serious criminal cases when he accepted his appointment as RTC Judge (Office of the Court Administrator vs. Estacion, Jr., 181 SCRA 33). 20. Notarizing a special power of attorney in the absence of the principal (Evalla vs. Mago, 76 SCRA 122). 21. Allowing a clerk-messenger to promulgate decisions of acquittal in criminal cases (Buenaventura vs. Benedicto, 38 SCRA 71). 22. Borrowing money from a litigant which the judge never intended to pay back (Ompoc vs. Torres, 178 SCRA 14). 23. Signing of two irreconciliable decisions on the same day (People vs. Elpedis, 112 SCRA 1). 24. Delay in transmitting the records to the CFI (RTC) upon conclusion of the preliminary investigation (Cusit vs. Jurado, 102 SCRA 633). 25. Allowing withdrawal of cash bail bond without allowing its substitution with proper bond (Cabangon vs. Valena, 107 SCRA 21). 26. Imposing excessive bail (Sunga vs. Salud, 109 SCRA 253). 27. Using prisoners for personal purposes (Hadap vs. Lee, 114 SCRA 559). 28. Acting on application for bail during the judges period of suspension (Reyes vs. Faderan, 186 SCRA 547). 29. Commission of grave abuse of discretion which means such capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction (Imutan vs. CA, 102 SCRA 286). 30. Assignig cases without the benefit of raffle in violation of Circular No. 7 (as amended) of the Supreme Court (Inciong vs. De Guia, 154 SCRA 93). 31. Refusal of a judge to furnish counsel with a copy of the transcript and order dictated in open court (Tamo vs. Gironella, 73 SCRA 613). 32. Encashing government checks (Office of the Court Administrator vs. Bartolome, 203 SCRA 333). Instances of Gross Inefficiency Which Merited Discipline by the Supreme Court 1. Delay in the disposition of cases in violation of the Canon that a judge must promptly dispose of all matters submitted to him. With or without the transcripts of stenographic notes, the 90-day period for deciding cases or resolving motions must be adhered to (Balagot vs. Opinion, 195 SCRA 429). 2. Unduly granting repeated motions for postponement of a case (Araza vs. Reyes, 64 SCRA 347). 3. Unawareness of or unfamiliarity with the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law and the duration and graduation of penalties (In re: Paulin, 101 SCRA 605). 4. Reducing to a ridiculous amount (Php6,000.00) the bail bond of the accused in a murder case thus enabling him to escape the toils of the law (Soriano vs. Mabbayad, 67 SCRA 385). 5. Imposing the penalty of subsidiary imprisonment on a party for failure to pay civil imdemnity in violation of R.A. 5465 (Monsanto vs. Palarca, 126 SCRA 45). 6. Issuing a warrant of arrest in a case which is clearly civil in nature (Serafin vs. Lindayag, 67 SCRA 166). 7. Failure to dismiss a complaint which has prescribed (Anguluan vs. Taguba, 93 SCRA 179). 8. Imposing the wrong penalty to the crime charged and proven (San Luis vs. Montejo, 4 SCRA 645).

9. Failure to comply with the basic prerequisites for issuance of search warrant (Secretary of Justice vs. Marcos, 76 SCRA 301). 10. Dismissing a criminal case on the principle of in pari delicto a civil law principle (Ubarra vs. Mapalad, A.M.No. MTJ-91-622, March 22, 1993). Aquino vs. Luntok, 184 SCRA 177 (1990) Where a judge has issued a temporary restraining order, he should promptly act on the application for issuance of preliminary injunction within the 20-day life of temporary restraining order, and while a writ of preliminary injunction issued after the 20-day period is valid, the failure of the judge to resolve the application for injunction within said period may subject him to disciplinary action. Castano vs. Escano, 251 SCRA 174 (1995) Judges should not be disciplined for inefficiency on account merely occasional mistakes or errors of judgment. However, when the inefficiency springs from a failure to consider the basic and elementary a rule, a law or principle, the judge is either too incompetent and undeserving of the position and title he holds or he is too vicious that his oversight or omission was deliberately done in bad faith and in grave abuse of juridical authority. In both instances, the judges dismissal from the service is in order. In re: Petition for Dismissal of Judge Dizon, supra. A judge who has been previously dismissed from the service for manifestly erroneous decision in a criminal case through gross incompetence and gross ignorance of the law may be reinstated where there is no clear indication that he was inspired by corrupt motives or reprehensible purpose to set the guilty free.

CIVIL LIABILITIES OF JUDGES IN RELATION TO THEIR OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS Forbes vs. Chuoco Tiaco and Crossfield, 16 Phil. 534 Whenever and wherever a judge of a court of superior jurisdictions exercises judicial functions, he will not be personally liable in civil damages for the result of his action, utterly regardless of whether he ever had jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action or not. Bridley vs. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 Judges of courts of superior or general jurisdiction are not liable in civil actions for their judicial acts, even when such acts are in excess of their jurisdiction and are alleged to have been done maliciously or corruptly. Art. 32, last par., New Civil Code The responsibility for damages is not however demandable of judges except when the act or omission of the judge constitutes a violation of the Penal Code or penal statute. Art. 20, Civil Code A judge who willfully or negligently renders a decision causing damages to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same. Art. 27 Civil Code A judge is also civilly liable for damages, if in refusing or neglecting to decide a case without a just cause, a person suffered material or moral loss without prejudice to any administrative action that may be taken against him.

CRIMINAL LIABILITIES OF JUDGES Maceda vs. Hon. Ombudsman Conrado Vasquez ,G.R. No. 102781, April 22, 1993 Criminal complaints against judges such as for violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and the Revised Penal Code should be filed with the Office of the Ombudsman and not with the Supreme Court. Judges being public officers are subject to the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman who can investigate and prosecute them for violations of the criminal laws, conformably with the provisions of the Constitution. However, if there are administrative questions relevant to the investigation of the criminal responsibility of judges and court personnel, the same should first be referred to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court must determine first whether or not a judge or a court employee acted within the scope of his administrative duties.

a) Knowingly Rendering Unjust Judgment (ART.204,RPC) Elements: 1. That the offender is a judge. 2. That he renders a judgment in a case submitted to him for decision. 3. That the judgment is unjust. 4. That the judge knows that his judgment is unjust. ** It must be shown beyond cavil that the judgment or order is unjust as being contrary to law so as not supported by the evidence, and that the judge rendered it with conscious and deliberate intent to do an injustice. (Rodrigo vs. Quijano, 79 SCRA 10) De la Cruz v. Concepcion The gist of the offense therefore is an unjust judgment be rendered maliciously or in bad faith, that is, knowing it to be unjust. Xxx xxx Mere error therefore in the interpretation or application of the law does not constitute the crime. The nature of the administrative charge of knowingly rendering an unjust judgment is the same as the criminal charge. Thus xxx xxx it must be established that respondent judge rendered a judgment or decision not supported by law and/or evidence and that he must be actuated be hatred, envy, revenge, or greed or some other similar motive. In re: Climaco, 55 SCRA 107 In order that a judge may be liable for knowingly rendering an unjust judgment, it must be shown beyond reasonable doubt that the judgment is unjust as it is contrary to law or is not supported by evidence, and the same was made with conscious and deliberate intent to do an injustice. Buenavista vs. Garcia, 187 SCRA 598 To be guilty of knowingly rendering unjust judgment, it is necessary that the judgment or order was rendered with conscious and deliberate intent to perpetrate an injustice. And the test to determine whether the judgment or order is unjust, may be inferred from the circumstance that it is contrary to law or is not supported by evidence. A judgment may be said unjust when it is manifestly against the law and contrary to the weight of evidence. An unjust judgment is one contrary to the standards of rights and justice or standards of conduct prescribed by the law. Gahol vs. Riodigue, 64 SCRA 494 If the decision rendered by the judge is still on appeal, the judge cannot be disqualified on the ground of Knowingly Rendering An Unjust Judgment. b) Judgment Rendered Through Negligence (Art. 205, RPC) Elements: 1. That the offender is a judge. 2. That he renders a judgment in a case submitted to him for decision. 3. That the judgment is manifestly unjust. 4. That it is due to his inexcusable negligence or ignorance. Manifestly Unjust Judgment

It is one which is so patently against the law, public order, public policy, and good morals that a person of ordinary discernment can easily sense its invalidity and injustice. In re: Climaco, 55 SCRA 107 To hold a judge liable for the rendition of a manifestly unjust judgment by reason of inexcusable negligence or ignorance, it must be shown, according to Groizard, that although he has acted without malice, he failed to observe in the performance of his duty, that diligence, prudence and care which the law is entitled to exact in the rendering of any public service. Negligence and ignorance are inexcusable if they manifest injustice in which cannot be explained by a reasonable interpretation. Inexcusable mistake only exists in the legal concept when it implies a manifest injustice, that is to say, such injustice which cannot be explained by a reasonable interpretation, even though there is a misunderstanding or error of the law applied, yet in the contrary it results, logically and reasonably, in a very clear and undisputable manner, in notorious violation of the legal precept. ** It must be clearly shown that although he has acted without malice, he failed to observe in the performance of his duty the diligence, prudence and care which the law requires from a public official. Negligence and ignorance are inexcusable if they imply a manifest injustice which cannot be explained by a reasonable interpretation, (In re Climaco, 55 SCRA 107). c) Knowingly Rendering An unjust Interlocutory Order (Art. 206, RPC) Elements: 1. That the offender is a judge; 2. That he performs any of the following acts: a. knowingly renders unjust interlocutory order or decree; or b. He renders manifestly unjust interlocutory order or decree through inexcusable negligence or ignorance * An Interlocutory Order is an order which is issued by the court between the commencement and the end of a suit or action and which decides some point or matter, but which, however, is not a final decision of the matter in issue. d) Maliciously Delaying the Administration of Justice (Art. 207, RPC) Elements: 1. That the offender is a judge; 2. That there is a proceeding in his court; 3. That he delays the administration of justice; 4. That the delay is malicious, that is, the delay is caused by the judge with the deliberate intent to inflict damage on either party in the case Revised Penal Code, Reyes, p. 208 1981 Ed. To make the judge liable, the act must be committed maliciously with deliberate intent to prejudice a party in the case. Mere delay without notice in holding trials or rendering judgments does not necessarily bring the judge within the operation of this law. e) Malfeasance Under Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act Section 3, (e) RA No. 3019 A judge is criminally liable for causing an undue injury to a person or giving any private party an unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference

in the discharge of his official function through manifest partially, evident bad faith and gross inexcusable negligence. Sabitsana, Jr. vs. Villamor, 202 SCRA 435 In administrative proceedings which are not based on violation of criminal or penal statutes, mere preponderance of evidence suffices to hold the judge administratively liable. An instance of this is a judges interference in a suit pending in another court. BRIBERY DIRECT OR INDIRECT Acceptance of gifts given by reason of the office of the judge is indirect bribery (Art. 211, RPC) and when he agrees to perform an act constituting a crime in connection with the performance of his official duties in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present receive by such officer, he is guilty of direct bribery (Art. 210, RPC). ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT Under RA 3019, the judge is liable criminally for directly or indirectly receiving gifts, present or other pecuniary or material benefit for himself or for another under conditions provided in Section 2, b and c of the law. EXCEPTION: Excepted are unsolicited gifts or presents of small value offered or given as a mere ordinary token of gratitude or friendship according to local custom or usage (Section 14 RA 3019). JUDICIAL IMMUNITY Revita vs. Rimando, 98 SCRA 619 As a matter of public policy, in the absence of fraud, dishonesty and corruption, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action, even though such acts are erroneous. Castanos vs. Escano, 251 SCRA 174 (1995) As a matter of policy, in the absence of fraud, dishonesty or corruption, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action even though such acts are erroneous. He cannot be subjected to liability civil, criminal, administrative for any of his official acts, no matter how erroneous, so long as he acts in good faith. In such a case, the remedy of the aggrieved party is not to file an administrative complaint against the judge but to elevate the error to the higher court for review and correction.

POWER AND LIABILITIES OF MEMBERS OF THE SUPREME COURT

Power of the Supreme Court Over Judges of the Lower Courts The Supreme Court has administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof (Section 6, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution). The Court en banc has the power to discipline all judges of lower courts including Justices of the Court of Appeals. It may even dismiss them by a majority vote of the members who actually took part in the deliberations of the issues in the case and voted thereon (Section 11, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution). Justices of the Supreme Court can only be Removed by Impeachment There is no specific law or rule which provides for a system of disciplining an erring Member of the Supreme Court by the Court itself acting en banc. The Justices of the Supreme Court are among the declared impeachable officers under the Constitution. Thus, they can only be removed by impeachment unlike judges of the lower courts who can be removed under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court. As impeachable officers, the Justices of the Supreme Court may only be removed in accordance with the constitutional mandates on impeachment. Cuenco vs. Fernan, 158 SCRA 29 Members of the Supreme Court must, under Article VIII (7) (1) of the Constitution, be members of the Philippine Bar and may be removed from office only by impeachment (Art. XI (2), Constitution). To grant a complaint for disbarment of a member of the Court during the Members incumbency, would in effect be to circumvent and hence to run afoul of the Constitutional mandate that Members of the Court may be removed from office only by impeachment for and conviction of certain offense listed in Article XI (2) of the Constitution. Precisely, the same situation exists in respect of the Ombudsman and his deputies [Art. XI (8) in relation to Art. XI (2), id], a majority of the members of the Commission on Audit who are not certified public accountants [Art. XI (D) (1) (1), id.] all of whom are constitutionally required to be members of the Philippine Bar.

Zaldivar vs. Gonzales, 166 SCRA 316 Under the Cuenco ruling, only the Justices of the Supreme Court shall not be subjected to disbarment proceedings during their incumbency. They can be subjected to disbarment proceedings during their incumbency only after they shall have been duly impeached by Congress. However, judges and magistrates of the lower courts may be subjected to disbarment proceedings. If they are found guilty and are suspended from the practice of law or are disbarred as members of the bar, they are also suspended or dismissed as judges. The reason for this is that membership in the bar is an (indispensable qualification for the position of judgeship, thus the suspension or loss thereof during the judges term of office, justifies his automatic suspension or dismissal therefrom.