JUDICIAL ETHICS
F. COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE Canon 6 Competence and diligence are
prerequisites to the due performance of judicial office.
Canon 6 – Asked 11 times in the Bar. [Lex Pareto (2014)].
A judge must be the embodiment of competence, integrity and independence, and be studiously careful to avoid the slightest infraction of the law, lest it be a demoralizing example to others [OCA v. Gines (1993)].
DUTIES TAKE PRECEDENCE
Sec. 1. The judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all other activities.
A judge may, in the exercise of his discretion, inhibit himself voluntarily from sitting in a case, but it should be based on good, sound or ethical grounds, or for just and valid reasons. No less than imperative is that it is the judge’s sacred duty to administer justice without fear or favor [Parayno v. Meneses (1994)]
PERFORM ADMINISTRAIVE DUTIES
Sec. 2. Judges shall devote their professional
activity to judicial duties, which include not only the performance of judicial functions and responsibilities in court and the making of decisions, but also other tasks relevant to the judicial office or the court's operations. Failure to speedily dispose of cases on account of missing records of cases reflects an inefficient and disorderly system in the recording of cases assigned to a judge’s sala. Proper and efficient court management is as much the judge’s responsibility, for the court personnel are not the guardians of a judge’s responsibilities. A judge is expected to ensure that the records of cases assigned to his sala are intact. There is no justification for missing records, except fortuitous events. The loss of eight records is indicative of gross misconduct and inexcusable negligence unbecoming of a judge [Longboan v. Polig (1990)].
MAINTAIN PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE
Sec. 3. Judges shall take reasonable steps to
maintain and enhance their knowledge, skills, and personal qualities necessary for the proper performance of judicial duties, taking advantage for this purpose of the training and other facilities which should be made available, under judicial control, to judges.
When a judge accepts his position, he owes it to the dignity of the court, to the legal profession, and to the public, to know the very law he is supposed to apply to a given controversy. 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.
What is gross ignorance of the law? [Bar 1991, Lex Pareto (2014)]
It is failure to follow basic legal commands embodied in the law and the ROC from which no one is excused, surely not a judge. (Fr.
Guillen v. Judge Canon, AM No. MTJ-01-1381
(2002)].
BE INFORMED ABOUT THE LAW
Sec. 4. Judges shall keep themselves
informed about the relevant developments of international law, including international
conventions and other instruments
establishing human rights norms.
Subject to the conditions set forth in Sec. 2, Article II and Sec. 21, Article VII, Constitution, international law, both customary and conventional, are part of Philippine law. The Supreme Court held that not only did Judge Bitas deviate from the requirement of a hearing where there is an application for bail, he also granted bail to Miralles without neither conducting a hearing nor a motion for application for bail. Judge Bitas’ acts are not mere deficiency in prudence, discretion and judgment on his part, but a patent disregard of well-known rules. When an error is so gross and patent, such error produces an inference of bad faith, making the judge liable for gross ignorance of the law. [Jorda v
Bitas (2014)].
PROMPT DECISION MAKING
Sec. 5. Judges shall perform all judicial
duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly, and with reasonable promptness.
Sec. 1, Rule 124 requires that justice be
impartially administered without unnecessary delay. This principle permeates the whole system of judicature, and supports the legitimacy of the decrees of judicial tribunals [ABA (2007)].
Prompt disposition of cases is attained basically through the efficiency and dedication to duty of judges. In a case, the civil case was already submitted for resolution. Being an ejectment case, it is governed by the Rules of Summary Procedure which clearly sets a period of 30 days from the submission of the last affidavit or position paper within which a decision must be issued. Despite this, Judge Regencia rendered judgment only more than 2 years later. While rules prescribing the time within which certain acts must be done, should be regarded as mandatory, the Court has nevertheless been mindful of the plight of judges and has been understanding of circumstances that may hinder them from promptly disposing of their businesses and, as such, has allowed extensions of time due to justifiable reasons. However, Judge Regencia failed to proffer any acceptable reason in delaying the disposition of the
ejectment case, thus, making her
administratively liable for undue delay in rendering a decision. [Gershon N. Dulang v.
Judge Mary Jocylen G. Regencia, MCTC, Asturias-Balamban, Cebu, A.M. No. MTJ-14-
1841 (2014)].
Every judge should decide cases with dispatch and should be careful, punctual, and observant in the performance of his functions for delay in the disposition of cases erodes the faith and confidence of our people in the judiciary, lowers its standards and brings it into disrepute. Failure to decide a case within the reglementary period is not excusable and constitutes gross inefficiency warranting the imposition of administrative sanctions on the defaulting judge [In Re
Cases for Decisions Submited to Judge Baluma
(2013)].
MAINTAIN ORDER IN PROCEEDINGS
Sec. 6. Judges shall maintain order and
decorum in all proceedings before the court and be patient, dignified, and courteous in
relation to litigants, witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity. Judges shall require similar conduct of legal representatives, court staff and others subject to their influence, direction, and control
Under earlier versions of Canons of Judicial Ethics, it was held that the courts are made for the litigants, not the litigants for the courts. Punctuality was required “recognizing that the time of the litigants, witnesses, and attorneys is of value.” Judges are not allowed to tolerate abuses and neglect by clerks, sheriffs, and other assistants and to exhibit
“undue interference, impatience, or
participation in the examination of witnesses.” [ABA (2007)]
The rights of the accused to a fair trial is far more superior to the right of press freedom. [Perez v. Estrada; Bar 2004; Lex Pareto (2014)]
What are the conditions for the intervention of a judge in the presentation of evidence? [Bar 2002, 1996] While a judge may intervene in the presentation of evidence to promote justice, prevent waste of time or clear up some obscurity, properly intervent in the presentation of evidence during trial, it should always be borne in mind that undue interference may prevent the proper
presentation of the cause or the
ascertainment of truth. (Rule 3.06, Old Code, applied in a suppletory character; Lex Pareto (2014)].
A judge was found guilty of committing acts unbecoming of a judge and abuse of authority when he shouted invectives and threw a chair, resulting in wrist and other injuries to the complainant [Briones v. Ante, Jr. (2002)].
Another judge was found guilty of serious misconduct and inefficiency by reason of habitual tardiness. He was fined and suspended for judicial indolence [Yu-Asensi v.
Villanueva (2000)].
NOT TO ENGAGE IN CONDUCT CONTRARY TO DUTIES
Sec. 7. Judges shall not engage in conduct
incompatible with the diligent discharge of judicial duties.
When a judge accepts his position, he owes it to the dignity of the court, to the legal profession, and to the public, to know the very law he is supposed to apply to a given controversy. 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
Although a judge is nearing retirement he should not relax in his study of the law and court decisions. Service in the judiciary means a continuous study and research on the law from beginning to end [Ajeno v. Inserto (1976)].
Judges are not, however, expected to be infallible; not every error or irregularity committed by judges in the performance of official duties is subject to administrative sanction. In the absence of bad faith, fraud, dishonesty, or deliberate intent to do injustice, incorrect rulings do not constitute misconduct and may not give rise to a charge of gross ignorance of the law [Cruz v. Iturralde (2003)].
Disciplinary proceedings and criminal actions against judges are not complementary or suppletory of, nor a substitute for, these judicial remedies, whether ordinary or extraordinary. Resort to and exhaustion of these judicial remedies are prerequisites for the taking of other measures against the persons of the judges concerned, whether of civil, administrative, or criminal nature. It is only after the available judicial remedies have been exhausted and the appellate tribunals have spoken with finality that the door to an
inquiry into his criminal, civil, or
administrative liability may be said to have opened, or closed [Maquiran v. Grageda (2005)].