IV. DISCIPLINE OF MEMBERS OF been exhausted and decided with finality. (Republic v. Caguioa, A.M. No.
THE JUDICIARY RTJ-07-2063, June 26, 2009)
A. DISCIPLINE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE SUPREME COURT
Q: Who has the power to discipline members of the bench?
A:
1. The Supreme Court has exclusive administrative supervision over all courts
and its personnel. (Section 6, Art. VIII, 1986 Constitution)
2. The Court en banc has the power to discipline all judges of lower courts
including justices of the Court of Appeals. (Section 11, Art. VIII, 1986
Constitution)
Q: May judges and justices be disbarred?
A: Yes. Judges and justices, being lawyers, may also be disbarred, if found
guilty of certain crimes and/or other causes for disbarment under the Rules
of Court.
Justices of the Supreme Court however may not be disbarred unless and
until they shall have been first impeached in accordance with the
Constitution.
IMPEACHMENT
Q: What is the nature of impeachment proceedings against SC justices?
A: Penal in nature governed by rules on criminal case.
Q: What is the degree of proof required?
A: Requires proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Q: Who are subject to impeachment?
A: Only SC Justices are subject to impeachment.
Note: While it is the duty of the court to investigate and determine the truth
behind every matter in complaints against judges and other court
personnel, it is also their duty to see to it that they are protected and
exonerated from baseless administrative charges. The Court will not shirk
from its responsibility of imposing discipline upon its magistrates, but neither
will it hesitate to shield them from unfounded suits that serve to disrupt rather
than promote the orderly administration of justice. (Ocenar v. .Judge
Mabutin, A.M. No. MTJ 05-158, Feb. 2005)
B. DISCIPLINE OF LOWER COURT JUDGES AND JUSTICES
Note: The acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to
disciplinary action. In the absence of fraud, malice or dishonesty in
rendering the assailed decision or order, the remedy of the aggrieved party
is to elevate the assailed decision or order to the higher court for review
and co
administrative liability may be made after the available remedies have
Q: How are the proceedings for the discipline of judges instituted?
A: Proceedings for the discipline of judges of regular and special courts and
justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan may be instituted:
1. Motu propio by the Supreme Court;
2. Upon a verified complaint filed before the Supreme Court supported by:
a. Affidavit of persons who have personal knowledge of the facts alleged
therein; or
b. Documents which may substantiate said allegations.
3. Anonymous complaint supported by public records of indubitable
integrity filed with the Supreme Court.
Q: What is the form of the complaint and what should it state?
A: The complaint shall be in writing and shall state clearly and concisely the
acts and omissions constituting violations of standards of conduct
prescribed for judges by law, the Rules of Court, or the Code of Judicial
Conduct.
C. GROUNDS
Q. What are the grounds for discipline of judges?
A.
1. Serious Misconduct implies malice or wrongful intent, not mere error of
judgment.
Judicial acts complained of:
a. Must be corrupt or inspired by an intention to violate the law; or
b. Were in persistent disregard for well-known legal rules.
Note: There is misconduct when there is reliable evidence showing that
judicial actions are corrupt or inspired by intent to violate the law or in
persistent disregard of legal rules.
Note: Serious misconduct implies malice or a wrongful intent, not a mere
error of judgment. For it to exist, 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.
2. Inefficiency implies negligence, incompetence, 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.
Q: Should a judge be held administratively liable for ignorance of the law
for granting bail to an accused in a criminal case without the requisite bail
hearing, and despite the fact that there was an eyewitness to the murder
who made a positive identification of the accused?
A: Yes. It is already settled that when a judge grants bail to a person
charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment without conducting the required bail hearing,
he is considered guilty of ignorance or incompetence the gravity of which
cannot be excused by a claim of good faith or excusable negligence.
When a judge displays an utter unfamiliarity with the law and the rules, he
erodes the confidence of the public in the courts. A judge owes the public
and the court the duty to be proficient in the law and is expected to keep
abreast of laws and the prevailing jurisprudence. Ignorance of the law by
a judge can easily be the mainspring of injustice.(Grageda v. Judge
Tresvalles, A.M. MTJ No. 04-1526, Feb. 2, 2004)
Q: Santiago and Sanchez were complainants in two different criminal cases
before the MTC of Bulacan and the RTC of Pampanga respectively. The
suspects in each of the criminal cases were caught and detained by
authorities. However, both suspects were released by order of Judge
Jovellanos of MCTC Pangasinan. The complainants questioned both Orders
for Release, alleging that the requirements for the bail bond had not been
fulfilled and that the said judge had no jurisdiction to order the release. Is
Judge Jovellanos guilty of gross incompetence and gross ignorance of the
law?
A: Yes. A judge should be acquainted with legal norms and precepts as
well as with statutes and procedural rules. Unfamiliarity with the Rules of
Court is a sign of incompetence. He must have the basic rules at the palm
of his hands as he is expected to maintain professional competence at all
times. Here, there are two defects in the Orders for Release signed by Judge
Jovellanos. First, in both cases, the detainees had not registered the
bailbond in accordance with the Rules of Criminal Procedure. One may not
be given provisional liberty if the bailbond is not registered with the proper
office. Secondly, Judge Jovellanos did not have jurisdiction to order the
release of the detainees as the cases were not pending in his court and the
suspects were not arrested within his jurisdiction. (Santiago v. Judge
Jovellanos, A.M. No. MTJ-00-1289, Aug. 1, 2000)
Note: Judges are not 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 give rise to a charge of gross ignorance of the law.
(Cruz v. Iturralde, A.M. No. MTJ-03-1775, April 30. 2003).
Q: Cruz was the defendant in an ejectment case filed by the Province of
Bulacan involving a parcel of land owned by the said province. A decision
was rendered against Cruz. He then filed an appeal and several motions for
reconsideration but all were subsequently denied by Justice Alino-
Hormachuelos before whom the motions were filed. Consequently, Cruz
charged all the judges and justices with grave misconduct, gross
inexcusable negligence, and rendering a void judgment. Should the
judges be held liable for grave misconduct and gross ignorance of the law?
A: No. The Court has consistently held that judges will not be held
administratively liable for mere errors of judgment in their rulings or decisions
absent a showing of malice or gross ignorance on their part. Bad faith or
malice cannot be inferred simply because the judgment is adverse to a
party. To hold a judge administratively accountable for every erroneous
ruling or decision he renders, assuming that he has erred, would be nothing
short of harassment and would make his position unbearable. Here, the fact
that the judge or justices rendered a decision not favorable to Cruz is not
enough to make them liable for grave misconduct. (Cruz v. Justice Alino-
Hormachuelos et. al., A.M. No. CA-04-38, Mar. 31, 2004)
Q: Judge Caguioa cited attorney X in direct contempt for allegedly using
Thereafter, the judge denied At
his provisional liberty. Atty. X now charged Judge Caguioa of gross
ignorance of law for denying his request. Is the judge guilty of gross
ignorance of law?
A: Yes. When the law violated is so elementary, as in this case, where there
is a rule which provides for the procedure to be followed in case of
contempt, for a judge not to know or to act as if he does not know it
request to post a bond despite the presence of a rule allowing such
constitutes gross ignorance of the law. (Dantes v. Caguioa, A.M. No. RTJ-
05-1919, June 27, 2005)
Note: Resort to administrative sanction is an exceptional remedy. The
normal course of action is to correct the errors or irregularities in the
application of law by the judge by way of motion for reconsideration, or
where appropriate under the rules of procedure, motion for new trial or
special civil action of certiorari, prohibition or mandamus.
An administrative case against the judge would not lie, even if the actions
were perceived to have gone beyond the norms of propriety, where a
sufficient judicial remedy exists. With much less reason could an
administrative case against the judge be a vehicle to correct possible
counsel. (Dadizon v. Judge Asis, A.M. No. RTJ-03-1760,
January 15, 2004)
Q: Is a disciplinary and criminal action against a judge a substitute for
judicial remedies?
A: Disciplinary and criminal actions against a judge, are not
complementary or suppletory of, nor a substitute for, judicial remedies,
whether ordinary or extraordinary. Resort to and exhaustion of 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, A.M. No. RTJ-04-
1888, Feb. 11, 2005)
Certificate of Title was granted by the Quezon City RTC. The Republic of the
Philippines through the Office of the Solicitor General appealed the
decision to the Court of Appeals the case of which was raffled to the Division
where Justice Enriquez was Chairperson. The special division reversed and
set aside the Decision of the Quezon City RTC. Motion for Reconsideration
having been denied, complainant filed the present complaint before the
SC. Pending the decision of the SC, an administrative charge of Gross
Ignorance of the law/Gross Incompetence was filed against respondent
Associate Enriquez. Is the filing of the administrative complaint against him
proper?
A: No. The remedy of the aggrieved party is not to file an administrative
complaint against the judge, but to elevate the assailed decision or order
to the higher court for review and correction. An administrative complaint
is not an appropriate remedy where judicial recourse is still available, such
as a motion for reconsideration, an appeal, or a petition for certiorari, unless
the assailed order or decision is tainted with fraud, malice, or dishonesty.
The failure to interpret the law or to properly appreciate the evidence
presented does not necessarily render a judge administratively liable.
A judicial officer cannot be called to account in a civil action for acts done
by him in the exercise of his judicial function, however erroneous. In the
highest importance to the proper administration of justice that a judicial
officer, in exercising the authority vested in him, shall be free to act upon
his own convictions, without apprehension of personal consequences to
himself." This concept of judicial immunity rests upon consideration of public
policy, its purpose being to preserve the integrity and independence of the
judiciary. This principle is of universal application and applies to all grades
of judicial officers from the highest judge of the nation and to the lowest
officer who sits as a court. (Santiago III v. Justice Enriquez, Jr. A.M. No. CA-
09-47-J, February 13, 2009) Q: What are the classifications of charges?
A: Administrative charges are classified as:
1. Serious
2. Less serious
3. Light.
Q: What are considered as serious charges?
A:
1. Bribery, direct or indirect;
2. Dishonesty and violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Law;
(R.A. 3019)
3. Gross misconduct constituting violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct
4. Knowingly rendering an unjust judgment or order as determined by a
competent court in an appropriate proceeding
5. Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude
6. Willful failure to pay a just debt
7. Borrowing money or property from lawyers and litigants in a case pending
before the court
8. Immorality
9. Gross ignorance of the law or procedure
10. Partisan political activities
11. Alcoholism and/or vicious habits
Q: What are considered as less serious charges?
A:
1. Undue delay in rendering a decision or order, or in transmitting the
records of a case
2. Frequently and unjustified absences without leave or habitual tardiness
3. Unauthorized practice of law
4. Violation of Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars
5. Receiving additional or double compensation unless specifically
authorized by law
6. Untruthful statements in the certificate of service
7. Simple misconduct
Q: What are considered as light charges?
A:
1. Vulgar and unbecoming conduct
2. Gambling in public
3. Fraternizing with lawyers and litigants with pending case/cases in his court
4. Undue delay in the submission of monthly reports
Q: Are the proceedings against them confidential?
A: Proceedings against judges of regular and special courts and justices of
the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan shall be private and
confidential, but a copy of the decision or resolution of the Court shall be
attached to the record of the respondent in the Office of the Court
Administrator. (Sec 12, Rule 140,RRC)
Q: What is the effect of resignation or retirement of a judge when there is a
pending administrative case against him?
A: The retirement of a judge or any judicial officer from service does not
preclude the finding of any administrative liability to which he should still be
answerable. Also, the withdrawal or recantation of the complaint does not
necessarily result in the dismissal of the case. (Atty. Molina v. Judge Paz,
A.M. No. RTJ -01-1638, December 8, 2003)
Note: The acceptance by the President of the resignation does not
necessarily render the case moot or deprive the SC of the authority to
investigate the charges. The court retains its jurisdiction either to pronounce
the respondent official innocent of the charges or declare him guilty
thereof. A contrary rule will be fraught with injustice and pregnant with
dreadful and dangerous implications (Pesole v. Rodriguez A.M. No. 755-
MTJ, January 31, 1978)
Q:May the heirs of a judge who was found guilty of gross neglect of duty
and dismissed from the service with disqualification from holding public
office for an offense committed before he was appointed judge, be entitled
to gratuity benefits?
A: Yes. Upon demise, the administrative complaint of the OCA had to be
considered closed and terminated. Therefore, there is no valid reason why
the heirs of the deceased should not be entitled to gratuity benefits for the
period he rendered service as MTCC judge up to the finality of the CSC
Resolution which imposed the penalty of "dismissal from service with all the
accessory penalties including disqualification from holding public office
The penalty of disqualification from holding public office and forfeiture of
benefits may not be applied retroactively, however, the judge should be
considered terminated from service in the judiciary as his appointment as
MTCC judge is deemed conditional upon his exoneration of the CSC
administrative charges against him. (Re: Application for retirement/gratuity
benefits under R.A. 910 as amended by R.A. 5095 and P.D. 1438 filed by Mrs.
Butacan, surviving spouse of the late Hon. Jimmy Butacan, former judge of
MTC, Tuguegarao City, who died on July 28, 2005,A.M. No. 12535-Ret, Apr.
22, 2008)
Q: What is the quantum of evidence required for the removal of a judicial
officer?
A: The ground for removal of a judicial officer should be established beyond
reasonable doubt. Such is the rule where the charge on which the removal
is sought is misconduct in office, willful neglect, corruption or
incompetence. The general rules in regard to admissibility of evidence in
criminal trials apply.
Note: For liability to attach, the assailed order, decision or actuation of the
judge in the performance of official duties must not only found to be
erroneous but, most importantly, it must be established that he was moved
by bad faith, dishonesty, hatred or some other like motive. Similarly, a judge
will be held administratively liable for rendering an unjust judgment one
which is contrary to law or jurisprudence or is not supported by evidence -
when he acts in bad faith, malice, revenge or some other similar motive. In
other words, in order to hold a judge liable for knowingly rendering an unjust
judgment, it must be shown beyond reasonable doubt that the judgment
was made with a conscious and deliberate intent to do an injustice. (Judge
De Guzman v Dy A.M. No. RTJ-1755, July 3, 2003)
Q: May a judge 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: A judge may be disciplined by the Supreme Court based solely on the
basis of the complaint filed by the complainant and the answer of the
respondent judge, under the principle of res ipsa loquitor. The Supreme
Court has held that when the facts alleged in the complaint are admitted
or are already shown on the record, and no credible explanation that
would negate the strong inference of evil intent is forthcoming, no further
hearing to establish such facts to support a judgment as to culpability of
the respondent is necessary (In Re: Petition for dismissal of Judge Dizon).
(1996 Bar Question)
Note: The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not and cannot dispense with
the twin requirements of due process, notice and the opportunity to be
heard. It merely dispenses with the procedure laid down in Rule 140, RRC.
(Aguirre, 2006)
Q: In Administrative Circular No. 1 addressed to all lower courts dated
January 28, 1988, the Supreme Court stressed:
All judges are reminded that the Supreme Court has applied the Res Ipsa
Loquitor rule in the removal of judges even without any formal investigation
whenever a decision, on its face, indicates gross incompetence or gross
ignorance of the law or gross misconduct (Cathay Pacific Airways v.
Romillo, G.R. No. 64276, 12 August 1986)
The application of the res ipsa loquitor rule in the removal of judges is
assailed in various quarters as inconsistent with due process and fair play.
Is there any basis for such a reaction? Explain.
A:
1. First view - there is a basis for the reaction against the res ipsa loquitor rule
on removing judges. According to the position taken by the Philippine Bar
Association, the res ipsa loquitor rule might violate the principle of due
process that is the right to be heard before one is condemned.
Moreover, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court provides for the procedure for the
removal of judges. Upon service of the complaint against him, he is entitled
to file an answer. If the answer merits a hearing, it is referred to a justice of
the Court of Appeals for investigation, the report of the investigation is
submitted to the Supreme Court for proper disposition.
The danger in applying the res ipsa loquitor rule is that the judge may have
committed only an error of judgment. His outright dismissal does violence
to the jurisprudence set in (In Re Horilleno, 43 Phil. 212, March 20, 1922)
2. Second view- According to the Supreme Court the lawyer or a judge can
be suspended or dismissed based in his activities or decision, as long as he
has been given an opportunity to explain his side. No investigation is
necessary.
Q: Does suspension pendente lite apply to judges?
A: No. While it is true that preventive suspension pendente lite does not
violate the right of the accused to be presumed innocent as the same is
not a penalty, the rules on preventive suspension of judges, not having
been expressly included in the Rules of Court, are amorphous at best.
Moreover, it is established that any administrative complaint leveled
against a judge must always be examined with a discriminating eye, for its
consequential effects are, by their nature, highly penal, such that the
respondent judge stands to face the sanction of dismissal or disbarment. As
aforementioned, the filing of criminal cases against judges may be used as
tools to harass them and may in the long run create adverse
consequences. (Re: Conviction of Judge Adoracion G. Angeles, A.M. No.
06-9-545-RTC, Jan. 31, 2008)
Q: May justices and judges be investigated under the grievance procedure
in the RRC?
A: No. Complaints against justices and judges are filed with the Supreme
Court which has exclusive administrative supervision over all courts and the
personnel thereof pursuant to Section 6 Art. VIII, Constitution. The Court en
banc has the power to discipline all judges of lower courts including justices
of the Court of Appeals (Section 11, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution)
As a matter of practice, the Supreme Court has assigned complaints
against Municipal or Metropolitan Trial Judges to an Executive Judge of a
Regional Trial Court and complaints against judges of Regional Trial Courts
to a justice of the Court of Appeals, while a complaint against a member
of the Court of Appeals would probably be assigned to a member of the
Supreme Court for investigation, report and recommendation. Retired SC
Justices are now tasked for this purpose.
Q: What is the rule on the liability of judges?
A:
GR: A judge is not liable administratively, civilly, or criminally, when he acts
within his legal powers and jurisdiction, even though such acts are
erroneous so long as he acts in good faith. In such a case, the remedy of
aggrieved party is not to file an administrative complaint against the judge
but to elevate the error to a higher court for review and correction.
Reason: To free the judge from apprehension of personal consequences to
himself and to preserve the integrity and independence of the judiciary.
XPN: Where an error is gross or patent, deliberate and malicious, or is
incurred with evident bad faith; or when there is fraud, dishonesty, or
corruption.
Q: What are the civil liabilities under the civil code?
A:
1. Article 27 refusal or neglect without just cause by a public servant to
perform his official duty.
2. Article 32 directly or indirectly obstructing, defeating, violating or in any
manner impeding or impairing civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution.
This responsibility for damages is not, however, demandable of judges
except when his act or omission constitutes a violation of the Penal Code
or other penal statute.
Q: What are the disabilities/restrictions under the Civil Code?
A:
1. Article 1491 (5) Justices, judges, prosecuting attorneys, clerks of court of
superior and inferior courts and other officers and employees connected
with the administration of justice cannot acquire by purchase, even at a
public or judicial action, either in person or through the mediation of
another the property and rights in litigation or levied upon an execution
before the court within whose jurisdiction or territory they exercise their
respective functions.
This prohibition includes the act of acquiring by assignment and shall apply
to lawyers, with respect to the property and rights which may be the object
of any litigation in which they may take part by virtue of their profession.
(1996 Bar Question)
2. Article 739 Donations made to a judge, his wife, descendants and
ascendants by reason of his office are void.
Q: What are the Criminal Liabilities under the RPC and the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act?
A:
1. Misfeasance
a. Article 204 Knowingly rendering unjust judgment.
b. Manifestly Unjust Judgment 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.
Note: It must be shown beyond 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. (In Re: Climaco,
A.C. No. 134-J, January 21, 1974)
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.
(Abad v. Bleza, A.M. No. R-227-RTJ, October 13, 1986)
2. Article 205 Judgment rendered through negligence committed by
reason of inexcusable negligence or ignorance.
Note: Negligence and ignorance are inexcusable if they imply a manifest
injustice, which cannot be explained by reasonable interpretation (In Re:
Climaco).
3. Article 206 Knowingly rendering an unjust interlocutory order; and
4. Maliciously delaying the administration of justice.
Note: The act must be committed maliciously with deliberate intent to
prejudice a party in a case.
D. SANCTIONS IMPOSED BY THE SUPREME COURT ON ERRING MEMBERS OF
THE JUDICIARY
4. Admonition with warning
E. REINSTATEMENT OF A JUDGE PREVIOUSLY DISCIPLINED
Q: When is reinstatement proper?
A: Reinstatement is proper when there is no indication that the judge is
inspired by corrupt motives or reprehensive purpose in the performance of
his functions.
Q: What are the factors to be considered in reinstatement?
A:
1. Unsullied name and service of record prior to dismissal
2. Commitment to avoid situation that spur suspicion of arbitrary conditions
3. Complainant mellowed down in pushing from his removal
4. Length of time separated from service

Q: What are the sanctions if the judge is found guilty of a serious charge?
A: Any of the following sanctions may be imposed:
1. Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the
Court may determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or
appointment to any public office, including government-owned or
controlled corporations. Provided, however, that the forfeiture of benefits
shall in no case include accrued leave credits
2. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than
three (3) but not exceeding six (6) months
3. A fine of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00

Q: What are the sanctions if the respondent is found guilty of a less serious
charge?
A:
1. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than
one (1) nor more than three (3) months; or
2. A fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00.

Note: The failure of a judge to decide even a single case within the 90-day
period was considered gross inefficiency warranting the imposition of fine
equivalent to his 1 month salary. (In Re: Judge Danilo Tenerife, A.M. No. 94-
5-42-MTC, Mar. 1996)

Q: What are the sanctions if the respondent is found guilty of a light charge?
A: Any of the following sanctions shall be imposed:
1. A fine of not less than P1,000.00 but not exceeding P10,000.00 and/or
2. Censure
3. Reprimand