PROPRIETY ARE ESSENTIAL TO THE PERFORMANCE OF ALL THE ACTIVITIES OF A

JUDGE.

Sec. 1, Canon 4, NCJC: Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their activities.

A:

1. The act of a judge of hearing cases on a day when he is supposed to be on official leave. (Re: Anonymous complaint Against Judge EdmundoAcuña, A.M. No. RTJ-04-1891, July 28, 2005)

2. Photograph showing the judge and a subordinate coming out of a hotel together even if there was no clear evidence of sexual congress between them is enough to give rise to the appearance of impropriety that the code strongly warns against. (Liwanag v. Lustre, A.M. No. MTJ-98-1168, Apr. 21 1999) 3. Joking remark made by a judge to a

litigant suggesting that the litigant prove he harbored no ill feelings towards the judge. (Co v. Plata, A.M. No. MTJ-03-1501, Mar. 14, 2005)

Q: Judge Lee was charged with conduct unbecoming of a judge for habitually using vulgar words especially when solemnizing marriage. It was alleged that in a certain marriage ceremony he made a comment that the bride and the groom should sexually satisfy each other so that his or her partner will not look for another. In his answer the judge contended that as solemnizing officer, it was his duty to so advice the couple, and his lecture about sex was intended for purposes of family planning and to forewarn the parties as to the cause of marital failure. Should the judge be disciplined?

A: Yes. A judge shall avoid impropriety and appearance of impropriety in all his activities.

Here, the advice of the judge using vulgar words during a wedding is not to be expected of a judge.

Such gutter-language is even rarely heard in slums. When used by a judge, respect for the entire judiciary plummets to the levels where the people would begin to doubt the moral standards of judges and their capacity and fitness to dispense justice. (Hadap v. Lee, A.M. No. 1665-MJ, June 29, 1982)

Q: During the hearing of an election protest filed by the brother of Judge Dojillo, the latter sat beside the counsel of his brother allegedly to give moral support. Did the judge commit any improper conduct?

A: Yes. The judge violated the rule on impropriety under the NCJC Sec 1 Canon 4 for even if he did not intend to use his position as a judge to

influence the outcome of his brother’s election protest, it cannot be denied that his presence in the courtroom during the hearing of his brother’s case would immediately give cause for the community to suspect that his being a colleague in the judiciary would influence the judge trying the case to favor his brother. (Vidal v. Judge Dojillo Jr., A.M. No. MTJ-05-1591, July 14, 2005)

Note: The Judge’s act in riding in defendant’s car deserves the stern probation of the Court. By such act, he openly exposed himself and the office he holds to suspicion, thus impairing the trust and faith of the people in the administration of justice. A judge’s official conduct should be free from the appearance of impropriety and his personal conduct and behavior should be beyond reproach. (Spouses Cabreana v. Avelino A.M. No. 1733 CFI September 30, 1981)

Q: Judge Duque of the RTC was charged with Impropriety, Corruption and Gross Misconduct.

Reyes alleged that she was a party-in-intervention in Land Registration filed by the Philippine Savings Bank against the spouses Choi. In a Decision, Judge Duque granted the motion for the issuance of a writ of possession in favor of the bank. Complainant Reyes filed an

“Urgent Petition for Lifting and Setting Aside of Writ of Possession and Quashal of Notice to Vacate” claiming that she bought the subject property from the spouses Choi and that she was in actual possession of the property with full knowledge of the bank.

At the hearing, Atty. Ubana, the lawyer of Reyes, introduced her to Judge Duque who allegedly gave Reyes 30 days to settle matters with the bank. She was unable to re-negotiate with the bank. Reyes then allegedly received a phone call from Judge Duque and he instructed Reyes to go

“to his house and bring some money in order that he can deny the pending motion to break open.” When she already had the money, she went to his house. The son of Judge Duque opened the gate. At his house, Judge Duque demanded money from her.

Another incident happened, whereby Reyes went to the house of Judge Duque for the payment of a sum of money. Judge Duque allegedly scolded her for not bringing the whole amount. Judge Duque then locked the main door of his house and asked Reyes to step into his office. Judge Duque held the waist of Reyes, embraced and kissed her. Reyes tried to struggle and free herself. Judge Duque raised her skirt, opened her blouse and sucked her breasts. He touched her private parts and attempted to have

163

ACADEMICS CHAIR:LESTER JAY ALAN E.FLORES II

U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N T O T O M A S sexual intercourse with Reyes. Reyes shouted for

help but the TV was too loud. As a desperate move, Reyes appealed to Judge Duque saying:

“kung gusto mo, huwag dito. Sa hotel, sasama ako sayo.” Judge Duque suddenly stopped his sexual advances and ordered Reyes to fix her hair. Is the respondent judge guilty of impropriety and gross misconduct?

A: Yes. Judges should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their activities.

Judges should conduct themselves in a way that is consistent with the dignity of the judicial office.

Judges, like any other citizen, are entitled to freedom of expression, belief, association and assembly, but in exercising such rights, they should always conduct themselves in such a manner as to preserve the dignity of the judicial office and the impartiality and independence of the judiciary.

The conduct of Judge Duque fell short of the exacting standards for members of the judiciary.

He failed to behave in a manner that would promote confidence in the judiciary. Considering that a judge is a visible representation of the law and of justice, he is naturally expected to be the epitome of integrity and should be beyond reproach. Judge Duque’s conduct indubitably bore the marks of impropriety and immorality. He failed to live up to the high moral standards of the judiciary and even transgressed the ordinary norms of decency of society. Had Judge Duque not retired, his misconduct would have merited his dismissal from the service. (Reyes v. Duque, A.M. No. RTJ-08-2136 , September 21, 2010)

Note: Membership in the judiciary circumscribes one’s personal conduct and imposes upon him certain restrictions, the faithful observance of which, is the price one has to pay for holding such a distinguished position. Accordingly, a magistrate of the law must comport himself in a manner that his conduct must be free of a whiff of impropriety, not only with respect to the performance of his official duties, but also to his behavior outside his sala and as a private individual. His conduct must be able to withstand the most searching public scrutiny, for the ethical principles and sense of propriety of a judge

are essential to the preservation of the people’s faith in the judicial system lest public confidence in the judiciary would be eroded by the incompetent, irresponsible and negligent conduct of judges.

(Bayaca v. Judge Ramos, A.M. No. MTJ-07-1676, Jan.

29, 2009)

Q: What is a dignified conduct?

A: Dignified conduct is best described as conduct befitting men and women possessed of temperance and respect for the law and for others.

Q: Judge Gonzales together with his two male friends went to the house of A and asked the two girls who were then boarding in A’s house to accompany his two male friends and take a stroll in the beach. When the girls refused, the judge admonished them. Consequently, the judge was charged with conduct unbecoming of a judge.

Will the action prosper?

A: Yes. A judge should so comport himself as not to degrade or bring embarrassment to his office.

Here, Judge Gonzales’ act of imposing his will on the complainants constitutes conducts unbecoming of a judge who should be civil, humble and considerate of the rights of others.

(Mariano v. Gonzales, A.M. No. 2180-MJ 114, May 31, 1982)

Note: In every litigation, the manner and attitude of a judge are crucial to everyone concerned. It is not for him to indulge or even to give the appearance of catering to the at-times human failing of yielding to first impressions. He is to refrain from reaching hasty conclusions or prejudging matters. It would be deplorable if he lays himself open to the suspicion of reacting to feelings rather than to facts, of being imprisoned in the net of his own sympathies and predilections. His language, both written and spoken, must be guarded and measured, lest the best intentions be misconstrued. He should avoid such action as would subject him to suspicion of interest in a case in his court. It is of utmost importance that a judge must preserve the trust and confidence reposed in him by the parties as an impartial, unbiased and dispassionate dispenser of justice. When he conducts himself in a manner that gives rise, fairly or unfairly, to perceptions of bias, such faith and confidence are eroded. His decisions, whether right or wrong, will always be under suspicion of irregularity. (Abesa v. Judge Nacional, A.M. No. MTJ-05-1605, June 8, 2006)

Sec. 2, Canon 4, NCJC: As a subject of constant public scrutiny, judges must accept personal restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly. In particular, judges shall conduct themselves in a way that is consistent with the dignity of the judicial office.

Q: What is the reason for this rule?

A: This section is directed at bolstering the principle of cold neutrality of an impartial judge as it requires judges to scrupulously guard against any act that may be construed as an expression of bias in favor of a litigant.

Note: 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 it hard to resist. If a judge is seen eating and drinking in public places with a lawyer who has cases pending in his or her sala, public suspicion may be aroused, thus tending to erode the trust of litigants in the impartiality of the judge.

(Padilla v. Zantua, G.R. No. 110990, Oct. 1994)

Note: A judge shall avoid fraternizing with lawyers and litigants.

Q: Complainant Prosecutor filed an administrative complaint against respondent Sandiganbayan Justices for grave misconduct, conduct unbecoming a Justice, and conduct grossly prejudicial to the interest of the service.

Allegedly, during a hearing, Justice Ong uttered words like “We are playing Gods here, we will do what we want to do, your contempt is already out, we fined you eighteen thousand pesos, even if you will appeal, by that time I will be there, Justice of the Supreme Court.” Also, he often asked lawyers from which law schools they had graduated, and frequently inquired whether the law school in which Justice Hernandez had studied and from which he had graduated was better than his (Justice Ong’s) own alma mater.

The complainant opined that the query was manifestly intended to emphasize that the San Beda College of Law, the alma mater of Justice Ong, and the UP College of Law, that of Justice Hernandez, were the best law schools. On another occasion in that hearing in Cebu City, Justice Hernandez discourteously shouted at Prosecutor HazelinaTujan-Militante, who was then observing trial from the gallery and said

“You are better than Director Somido? Are you better than Director Chua? Are you here to supervise Somido? Your office is wasting funds for one prosecutor who is doing nothing”.

Finally, Justice Hernandez berated Atty.

Pangalangan, the father of former UP Law Dean Raul Pangalangan, and uttered words such as

“Just because your son is always nominated by the JBC to Malacañang, you are acting like that!

Do not forget that the brain of the child follows that of their (sic) mother.” Should the respondent justices be held liable for conduct unbecoming?

A: YES. Publicizing professional qualifications or boasting of having studied in and graduated from certain law schools, no matter how prestigious, might have even revealed, on the part of Justice Ong and Justice Hernandez, shows their bias for or against some lawyers. Their conduct was impermissible, consequently, for Section 3, Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, demands that judges avoid situations that may reasonably give rise to the suspicion or appearance of favoritism or partiality in their personal relations with individual members of the legal profession who practice regularly in their courts. Judges should be dignified in demeanor, and refined in speech. In performing their judicial duties, they should not manifest bias or prejudice by word or conduct towards any person or group on irrelevant grounds. It is very essential that they should live up to the high standards their noble position on the Bench demands. Their language must be guarded and measured, lest the best of intentions be misconstrued. In this regard, Section 3, Canon 5 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, mandates judges to carry out judicial duties with appropriate consideration for all persons, such as the parties, witnesses, lawyers, court staff, and judicial colleagues, without differentiation on any irrelevant ground, immaterial to the proper performance of such duties. (Jamsani-Rodriguez v. Ong, A.M. No. 08-19-SB-J, August 24, 2010)

Note: This rule rests on the principle that no judge should preside in a case in which the judge is not wholly free, disinterested, impartial and independent.

Sec. 3, Canon 4, NCJC: Judges shall, in their personal relations with individual members of the legal profession who practice regularly in their court, avoid situations which might reasonably give rise to the suspicion or appearance of favoritism or partiality.

Sec. 4, Canon 4, NCJC: Judges shall not participate in the determination of a case in which any member of their family represents a litigant or is associated in any manner with the case.

Sec. 5, Canon 4, NCJC: Judges shall not allow the use of their residence by a member of the legal profession to receive clients of the latter or of other members of the legal profession.

165

ACADEMICS CHAIR:LESTER JAY ALAN E.FLORES II

U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N T O T O M A S Note: It was inappropriate for a judge to have

entertained a litigant in his house particularly when the case is still pending before his sala. (J. King and Sons. V Hontanosas, Adm. Matter No. RTJ-03-1802, September 21, 2004)

Q: What is the reason for this rule?

A: The reason is that judges are required to always exhibit cold neutrality of an impartial judge.

Note: While judges are not expected to live a hermit-like existence or cease functioning as citizens of the Republic, they should remember that they do not disrobe themselves of their judicial office upon leaving their salas. In the exercise of their civil liberties, they should be circumspect and ever mindful that their continuing commitment to upholding the judiciary and its values places upon them certain implied restraints to their freedom.

Q: In an anonymous letter sent to the OCA, Judge Acuña was charged with improper conduct for allegedly making humiliating statements such as “putris,” and “putang-ina”. In his comment, Judge Acuña explained that those words are only his favorite expressions and they are not directed to any particular person. He also explained that his behavior is justified by the fact that he is still mourning the sudden demise of his eldest son. Is the Judge guilty of improper conduct?

A: Yes. Judges are demanded to be always temperate, patient and courteous both in the conduct and language. Indeed, judges should so behave at all times because having accepted the esteemed position of a judge he ought to have known that more is expected of him than ordinary citizen. Here, the judge’s use of humiliating and insensitive expressions like

“putris” and ”putang- ina” is improper as such intemperate language detracts from how he should conduct himself. Moreover, it does not matter whether such expressions were directed to a particular person or not, as they give the impression of a person’s ill manners. (Re:

Anonymous complaint Against Judge Acuña, A.M.

No. RTJ-04-1891, July 28, 2005)

Note: Judges in the exercise of their civil liberties, should be circumspect and ever mindful of their continuing commitment to uphold the judiciary and its values places upon them certain implied restraints to their freedom. A judge was admonished for the appearance of engaging in partisan politics when he participated in a political rally sponsored by one party, even though he only explained the mechanics of block voting to the audience. (Macias v. Arula, A.M. No. 1895-CFI, July 20, 1982)

Note: This section should be read in conjunction with Sec. 7 of the R.A. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical standards for Public officials and Employee), which prohibits certain personal fiduciary and financial conflicts.

A judge shall refrain from financial and business dealings that tend to reflect adversely on the court's impartiality, interfere with the proper performance of judicial activities, or increase involvement with lawyers or persons likely to come before the court.

Q: What are the acts prohibited by the rule?

A:

1. Judge’s act of using judicial office to advance private interests

Note: An RTC judge took advantage of his position, by filing in the Makati court a collection case in which he and his wife were the complainants. The Court ruled that although a stipulation in the contract gave the judge, as creditor, choice of venue, the judge had nonetheless fallen short of what is expected of him as a judicial officer. This act of the judge would lead the public, and in particular the judge’s adversary, to suspect Sec. 7, Canon 4, NCJC: Judges shall inform themselves about their personal fiduciary and financial interests and shall make reasonable efforts to be informed about the financial interests of members of their family.

Sec. 8, Canon 4, NCJC: Judges shall not use or lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance their private interests, or those of a member of their family or of anyone else, nor shall they convey or permit others to convey the impression that anyone is in a special position improperly to influence them in the performance of judicial duties.

Sec. 6, Canon 4, NCJC: Judges, like any other citizen, are entitled to freedom of expression, belief, association and assembly, but in exercising such rights, they shall always conduct themselves in such a manner as to preserve the dignity of the judicial office and the impartiality and independence of the judiciary.

that the judge would use the choice of venue as a means to exert influence in favor of himself. (Javier v. De Guzman, A.M. No. RTJ-89-380, Dec. 19, 1990)

2. Judge’s act of giving impression that he can be influenced to use the judicial office to advance the private interests of others.

2. Judge’s act of giving impression that he can be influenced to use the judicial office to advance the private interests of others.