IV.

DISCIPLINE OF MEMBERS OF
THE JUDICIARY 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.
A. 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 correction. However, an inquiry into a judge’s civil, criminal
and/or administrative liability may be made after the available remedies have been
exhausted and decided with finality. (Republic v. Caguioa, A.M. No. RTJ-07-2063, June
26, 2009)
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 disrespectful
language in his pleadings, and directed the latter’s arrest. Thereafter, the judge denied
Atty. X’ request to allow him to post a bond for 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 constitutes gross ignorance. The judge’s act
therefore of denying the 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 mistakes of one’s 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)
Q: Santiago’s Petition for Reconstitution of Lost/Destroyed Original 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 words of Alzua and
Arnalot v. Johnson, “ it is a general principle of 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 and forfeiture of benefits”.
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
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
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