New Code of Judicial Conduct
Canon 5
Ensuring equality of treatment to all before the
courts is essential to the due performance of the
judicial office.
Section 1
Judges shall be aware of and understand
diversity in society and differences arising from
various sources, including, but not limited to,
race, color, sex, religion, national origin, caste,
disability, age, marital status, sexual orientation,
social and economic status, and other like
causes.
Concerned Trial Lawyers of Manila v Judge
Veneracion
A.M. No. RTJ-05-1920. April 26, 2006
FACTS:
Complainants assailed the apparent reluctance
of the Judge to grant petitions for the
declaration of the nullity of marriage despite
their alleged merits. Instead, he would lecture
litigants and harass them by forcing them to
read the Bible. There were occasions wherein
the respondent Judge would castigate the
litigants or the counsels for their failure in giving
the interpretation he wanted. Complainants
allege that the fact that a number of cases of
declaration of nullity of marriage were
withdrawn upon assignment to his sala prove
their claim.
ISSUE:
Whether or not administrative sanctions should
be imposed to the respondent Judge for his
allege actions of forcing upon the litigants and
counsel his religious beliefs and convictions.
RULING:
The Supreme Court held in this case that
contrary to the alleged harassment and
imposition of respondent judge’s religious beliefs
to litigants and counsels, the Court finds instead
that respondent judge observed Section 1 of
Canon 5 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct.
In that the respondent judge received numerous
letters of support outpouring with kind words
alluding to respondent judge’s practice of
reading verses from the Bible. Further, no
compulsion was made on the part of respondent
judge whenever he questioned the litigants as to
whether they read the Bible or not. He did not
impose hisreligious convictions on them but
merely suggested the benefits of reading the
Bible. Nevertheless the Supreme Court finds
that it is a most opportune time to remind
judges that their actions in court should always
be seen by the public as guided by the law and
not by their personal or religious beliefs. This is
the only way to prevent the public from seeing a
display of religiosity as an encroachment on or
an interference with our system of justice.
Section 2
Judges shall not, in the performance of judicial
duties, by words or conduct, manifest bias or
prejudice towards any person or group on
irrelevant grounds.
Section 3
Judges shall not, in the performance of judicial
duties, by words or conduct, manifest bias or
prejudice towards any person or group on
irrelevant grounds.
Jamsani-Rodriguez v Ong their respective law schools. The Supreme
A.M. No. 08-19-SB-J. April 12, 2011 Court finds such as unbecoming conduct and
failure to observe Section 3, Canon 5 of the New
FACTS: Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine
Judiciary as publicizing professional
Complainant charged respondent Justice Ong,
qualifications or boasting of having studied in
Justice Hernandez and Justice Ponferrada,
and graduated from certain law schools, no
members of the fourth division of the
matter how prestigious, might have revealed, on
Sandiganbayan, with (a) grave misconduct,
the part of Justice Ong and Justice Hernandez,
conduct unbecoming a Justice, and conduct
their bias for or against some lawyers.
grossly prejudicial to the interest of the service;
(b) falsification of public documents; (c)
improprieties in the hearing of cases that
amounted to gross abuse of judicial authority
and grave misconduct (grounded on Justice Ong
and Justice Hernandez's making the following
intemperate and discriminatory utterances
during the hearings of their Division in Cebu City
sometime in September 2006), among which it
is alleged that Justice Ong 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; and (d)
manifest partiality and gross ignorance of the
law.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent Justices violated the

Code of Judicial Conduct with regard to their
alleged discriminatory utterances.

RULING:

The Supreme Court finds that a review of the

stenographic notes on the hearings where the
offensive statements were alleged to be uttered
by them did not substantiate the complainant’s
charge. However, Justice Ong and Justice
Hernandez admitted randomly asking the
counsels appearing before them from which law
schools they had graduated, and their engaging
during the hearings in casual conversation about