Jardeleza vs. CJ Sereno, G.R. Nos. 213181, Aug.

19, 2014
Issue No. 1) Can the Supreme Court exercise its expanded certiorari jurisdiction
over the JBC which does not exercise judicial nor quasi-judicial function?
Ruling: Yes. The Court is of the position that it can exercise the expanded judicial power
of review vested upon it by the 1987 Constitution. Thus:
Article VIII. Section 1. The judicial power is vested in one Supreme Court and in such
lower courts as may be established by law. Judicial power includes the duty of the courts
of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and
enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of
the Government.
It has been judicially settled that a petition for certiorari is a proper remedy to question
the act of any branch or instrumentality of the government on the ground of grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by any branch or instrumentality of the
government, even if the latter does not exercise judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions.
Issue No. 2) Does the original invocation of Section 2, Rule 10 of JBC-009 involve a
question on Jardelezas integrity?
No. The initial or original invocation of Section 2, Rule 10 of JBC-009 was grounded on
Jardelezas inability to discharge the duties of his office as shown in a legal memorandum
related to Jardelezas manner of representing the government in a legal dispute. Jardaleza is said
to have committed an act of disloyalty committed by in the handling of a case, the fact remains
that the basis for her invocation of the rule was the disagreement in legal strategy as expressed
by a group of international lawyers. The approach taken by Jardeleza in that case was opposed to
that preferred by the legal team. On this issue, a lawyer has complete discretion on what legal
strategy to employ in a case entrusted to him provided that he lives up to his duty to serve his
client with competence and diligence, and that he exert his best efforts to protect the interests of
his client within the bounds of the law. The Court cannot consider her invocation of Section 2,
Rule 10 of JBC-009 as conformably within the contemplation of the rule. To fall under Section 2,
Rule 10 of JBC-009, there must be a showing that the act complained of is, at the least, linked to
the moral character of the person and not to his judgment as a professional. What this disposition
perceives, therefore, is the inapplicability of Section 2, Rule 10 of JBC-009 to the original
ground of its invocation.
(May be omitted: However, on the issues involving extra marital affairs and insider trading.
Jurisprudence is replete with cases where a lawyers deliberate participation in extra-marital
affairs was considered as a disgraceful stain on ones ethical and moral principles. The bottom
line is that a lawyer who engages in extra-marital affairs is deemed to have failed to adhere to the
exacting standards of morality and decency which every member of the Judiciary is expected to
observe. On the other hand, insider trading is an offense that assaults the integrity of our vital

securities market. These two issues can be properly categorized as questions on integrity under
Section 2, Rule 10 of JBC-009. They fall within the ambit of questions on integrity. Hence, the
unanimity rule may come into operation as the subject provision is worded.)
Issue No. 3. Does his adoption of a specific legal strategy in the handling of a case bring
forth a relevant and logical challenge against his moral character?
No. A lawyer has complete discretion on what legal strategy to employ in a case entrusted to him
provided that he lives up to his duty to serve his client with competence and diligence, and that
he exert his best efforts to protect the interests of his client within the bounds of the law.
Consonantly, a lawyer is not an insurer of victory for clients he represents. An infallible grasp of
legal principles and technique by a lawyer is a utopian ideal.
Stripped of a clear showing of gross neglect, iniquity, or immoral purpose, a strategy of a legal
mind remains a legal tactic acceptable to some and deplorable to others. It has no direct bearing
on his moral choices.
Issue No. 4. Does the unanimity rule apply in cases where the main point of contention is
the professional judgment sans charges or implications of immoral or corrupt behavior?
Ruling: Section 2, Rule 10 of JBC-009 envisions only a situation where an applicants moral
fitness is challenged. It follows then that the unanimity rule only comes into operation when
the moral character of a person is put in issue. There must be a showing that the act complained
of is, at the least, linked to the moral character of the person and not to his judgment as a
professional. Hence, it finds no application where the question is essentially unrelated to an
applicants moral uprightness.
Villanueva vs. JBC, G.R. No. 211833, Apr. 07, 2015
Issue: Is the policy of the JBC requiring five years of service as judges of first-level courts
before they can qualify as applicant to second-level courts constitutional?
Ruling: Yes. The adoption of the five-year requirement policy applied by JBC to the
petitioner's case is necessary and incidental to the function conferred by the Constitution to
the JBC.
The JBC has the authority to set the standards/criteria in choosing its nominees for every
vacancy in the judiciary, subject only to the minimum qualifications required by the
Constitution and law for every position. The search for these long held qualities necessarily
requires a degree of flexibility in order to determine who is most fit among the applicants.
Thus, the JBC has sufficient but not unbridled license to act in performing its duties.
JBC's ultimate goal is to recommend nominees and not simply to fill up judicial vacancies in
order to promote an effective and efficient administration of justice. Given this pragmatic
situation, the JBC had to establish a set of uniform criteria in order to ascertain whether an
applicant meets the minimum constitutional qualifications and possesses the qualities
expected of him and his office.

Issue: Must this five years of service rules be published and submitted to ONAR?
Yes. The assailed JBC policy requiring five years of service as judges of first-level courts before
they can qualify as applicants to second-level courts should have been published. As a general
rule, publication is indispensable in order that all statutes, including administrative rules that are
intended to enforce or implement existing laws, attain binding force and effect. There are,
however, several exceptions to the requirement of publication, such as interpretative regulations
and those merely internal in nature, which regulate only the personnel of the administrative
agency and not the public.
Here, the assailed JBC policy does not fall within the administrative rules and regulations
exempted from the publication requirement. The assailed policy involves a qualification standard
by which the JBC shall determine proven competence of an applicant. It is not an internal
regulation, because if it were, it would regulate and affect only the members of the JBC and their
staff. Notably, the selection process involves a call to lawyers who meet the qualifications in the
Constitution and are willing to serve in the Judiciary to apply to these vacant positions. Thus, it is
but a natural consequence thereof that potential applicants be informed of the requirements to the
judicial positions, so that they would be able to prepare for and comply with them.
Moreover, jurisprudence has held that rules implementing a statute should be published. Thus, by
analogy, publication is also required for the five-year requirement because it seeks to implement
a constitutional provision requiring proven competence from members of the judiciary.
OCA vs. Judge Flores, A.M. No. RTJ-12-2325 , April 14, 2015
Does taking cognizance of cases outside the courts jurisdiction tantamount to gross
ignorance of the law?
Yes. The undisputed OCA Investigation Report in the present consolidated cases showed
an alarming number of pending and decided cases where the actual residence of the
parties are obviously not within the territorial jurisdiction of the courts presided by Judge
Flores but he nevertheless took cognizance of these cases without even making an inquiry
as to their veracity. Judge Flores incompetence became even more manifest when he
curtailed the efforts of the public prosecutors in ensuring that the rule on proper venue
will not be circumvented. The utter disregard shown by Judge Flores displays not only a
lack of familiarity with the law but a gross ignorance thereof.
IN RE: Production of Court Records and Documents, February 14, 2012
Must a dissenting Justice explain his dissent?
Yes. The dissenting opinion refers to the personal opinion of the writer who has the constitutional
duty to explain his/her dissent and is a matter of public record after it is published. The Court,
however, as the institution entitled to deliberate process privilege, cannot waive the

confidentiality of certain portions of this dissent for being part of the privilege. The Court shall
allow the witness to sse a certified true copy f this dissent, subject to its reservation.