Canons of Ethics

Rule 8
He should organize his court with a view to prompt and convenient dispatch of its business and he should not tolerate abuses and neglect by clerks, sheriffs, and other assistants who are sometimes prone to presume too much upon his good-natured acquiescence by reason of friendly association with him.

Case
UNITED BF HOMEOWNERS vs. JUSTICE GUTIERREZ

A.M. No. CA-99-30, September 29,1999

FACTS:

The United BF Homeowners filed a complaint against Justice Gutierrez of the Court of Appeals and Justice Benipayo, the Court Administrator, alleging unreasonable and very suspicious delay on the part of the former in deciding a case before her division and inaction by the latter on the administrative complaint filed with the Office of the Court Administrator by complainants against Justice Gutierrez and the members of her division in connection with the alleged delay.

They contend that Justice Gutierrez had not been acting on their petition for prohibition and that she had given respondents therein undue advantage by granting five motions for extension of time by the Office of the Solicitor General.

Issues:
(1) Is Justice Gutierrez guilty of delay in disposing the case? (2) Is Justice Benipayo also guilty of very unusual delay in deciding complainants administrative complaint against Justice Gutierrez?

Held:
(1) NO. The court exist to promote justice and thus, aid in securing the contentment and happiness of the people. To this end, the judge should organize his or her court with a view to a prompt and convenient dispatch of business, especially those cases which the law requires to be expeditiously heard and decided.

On the other hand, a judge should not decide cases with undue haste, especially when their nature and complexity require in-depth study and research. A fast tracking in the disposition of cases to achieve popularity at the expense of mature and careful deliberation is anathema to justice and fairness. Simply put, the administration of justice should be speedy but, at the same time,

The reglementary period for deciding a case does not run from the date when the initiatory pleading was filed but, rather, from the time when the last required pleading is submitted as provided by the Constitution. As provided in Section 15 (1) and (2), Art. VIII of the 1987 Constitution, lower collegiate courts such as the Court of Appeals are mandated to resolve a case within 12 months from the submission of the last required pleading.

In the case at bar, the last pleading which was the reply of petitioner therein to the comment of the Office of the Solicitor General, was submitted on September 7, 1998. Less than 10 months thereafter, or more precisely on June 29, 1999, the Court of Appeals already promulgated its decision on the petition. Clearly, Justice Gutierrez and the members of her division did not violate the above provision; consequently, they could not be considered to have delayed the resolution of the petition for prohibition.

(2) NO. It is not the Court Administrator who decides administrative complaints against Justices of the Court of Appeals. It is the Supreme Court pursuant to Sec. 11, Art. VIII of the 1987 Constitution who has the authority to decide whether a member of the bench should be subjected to disciplinary action.

Rule 9
Consideration for witnesses and others He should be considerate of witnesses and others in attendance upon his court.

CASE DIGEST
BERGONIA

vs. GONZALES-DECANO
A.M. No. 99-692-RTJ, October 29, 1999

Facts:

Complainant Bergonia alleged in her complaint that during the scheduled hearing of the Motion for Execution and Demolition, the respondent judge humiliated the her by saying in open court, Bakit hindi ka pa umalis? (referring to the property subject matter of the civil case), Naiintindihan mo ba itong nakasulat dito? (referring to the motion for execution and demolition), to which complainant answered, Mayroon po akong abogado and proceeded to wait for her counsel.

Complainant further alleged that on several occasions, whenever her counsel is late for the hearings, respondent will say in open court, Siguro, hindi mo binabayaran ang abogado mo? Complainant claims that the actuations of respondent constitute conduct unbecoming of a judge and are a clear case of bias and partiality in favor of the other party.

Issue:

(1) Did the respondent judge violate Canon 3, Rule 3.04 of the Code of Judicial Conduct by uttering uncalled-for statements during the trial of the civil case? (2) Did the respondent judge show partiality?

Held: (1) YES. Time and again, the Supreme Court has reminded judges that their official conduct should be free from and be untainted by the appearance of impropriety, and his or her personal behavior, not only upon the bench and in the performance of judicial duties, but also in his or her everyday life, should be beyond reproach.

Public confidence in the Judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct of judges. A judge must avoid all impropriety and the appearance thereof.

Being the subject of constant public scrutiny, a judge should freely and willingly accept restrictions on conduct that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen.

Resort to intemperate language only detracts from the respect due a member of the judiciary and become self-destructive.

As a judge, respondent should not resort to the use of undignified language. Respondent has departed from the proper judicial decorum by using such intemperate and insulting language directed towards complainant herein. Her choice of words is not proper. Respondent forgets that a judge should be prudent and more circumspect in his or her utterances, remembering that his or her conduct in and outside the courtroom is under

 Canon 3, Rule 3.04 of the Code of Judicial

Conduct provides that A judge should be patient, attentive, and courteous to lawyers, especially the inexperienced, to the litigants, witnesses, and others appearing before the court. A judge should avoid unconsciously falling into the attitude of mind that the litigants are made for the courts, instead of the courts for the litigants.
(2) NO. The charge of bias and partiality

leveled against respondent is baseless and unfounded, hence must be dismissed.

RULE 10
Courtesy and civility
Judges should be courteous to counsel, especially to those who are young and inexperienced, and also to all others concerned in the administration of justice in their courts. They should also require, and, as far as their power extends, enforce on the part of clerks, court officers and counsel civility and courtesy to witnesses, litigants and others having business with the court.

CASE DIGEST
LUMIBAO vs. PANAL

AM No. MTJ-99-1237
November 25, 1999

Facts:

Aldin Tusan was summoned by Judge Panal to appear before the Office of the Chief of Police, because of the past experience of the police brutality, Tusan requested Lumibao, President of NGOAlabel Reform movement, to accompany him. During the meeting Judge Panal was already very angry at Aldin Tusan for bringing to the attention of the Supreme Court in his complaint regarding (sic) his son's pending case.

Judge Panal was not able to control his anger when Lumibao suggested that Tusan should also be given the chance to explain his reason as to why he brought his complaint against Judge Panal. At this juncture, the Judge banged his fist on the table and pinpointed on Tusan and shouted 'putang ina mo, Mrs. Lumibao'.

There was a commotion immediately after that because some policemen entered the office and pushed Tusan and practically dragged him out of the office because Judge Panal was on the act of slapping him. Judge Panal was shouting at the top of his voice in front ot the police station, threatening Tusan with a court suit.

Issue:

Is the respondent judge guilty of misconduct for hurling invectives against complainant?

Held:

YES. After careful scrutiny of the testimonies of the witnesses, the court is convinced that the respondent indeed has performed acts and uttered words that, in effect, degraded the image of the courts before the eyes of the public.

From the standpoint of conduct and demeanor expected of a judge, resort to intemperate language only detracts from the respect due a member of the judiciary and becomes self-destructive. A judge should then show no shortness of temper which merely detracts from the equanimity and judiciousness that should be the constant marks of a dispenser of justice.

High-strung and belligerent behavior has no place in government service where the personnel are enjoined to act with self-restraint and civility at all times even when confronted with rudeness and insolence.

Arrogance, to be sure, on the part of the respondent would only erode the image of the courts as temples of justice and refuge of the oppressed. In fine, respondents actuations are incongruent to the code of Judicial Conduct which sternly demands of judges rectitude and urbanity in the conduct of their affairs, official or otherwise. After all, judges in the watchful eyes of the common tao, are the keepers of the law and the staunch sentinels of justice.

RULE 11
Appointments of the judiciary and their compensation Trustees, receivers, masters, referees, guardians, and administrators appointed by a judge to aid in the administration of justice under his supervision should have the strictest probity and impartiality and should be selected with a view solely to their character and competency. Patronage of a judge is conferred by him for no personal or partisan advantage. A judge should not permit his appointments to be controlled by others than himself, and he should avoid the allowance of excessive compensation to the appointees. He should also avoid nepotism in his appointments

CASE DIGEST
MARQUEZ vs. MANIGBAS
A.M. No. 97-9-94-MTCC December 8, 1999

Facts: Judge Arcadio Manigbas of MTC, Lipa City is charged by Atty. Marquez for violating the Code of Judicial Conduct allegedly for: (a) allowing his wife to appear in his sala, (b) undue delay in the resolution of cases, and (c) maneuvering the designation of Judge Mercado as his Assisting Judge.

Issue: Is the respondent judge guilty of violating the Code of Judicial Conduct?

Held: NO. Nothing in the record could indicate that Judge Manigbas manipulated the appointment of his assisting judge. The fact that the judge informed another judge of his need for an assisting judge is not tantamount to maneuvering the latters appointment. To conclude that Judge Manigbas arranged the designation of Judge Mercado would be equivalent to saying that the court, although it wields the exclusive supervisory power over all the courts in the land, is susceptible to undue influence by a municipal trial court

Rule 12
Kinship or influence of parties and counsel A judge should not, unless it is unavoidable, sit in litigation where a near relative is a party or of counsel; and he should not suffer his conduct to create the impression that any person can unduly influence him or enjoy his favor, or that he is affected by the rank, position, or influence of any party.

Case Digest
CARUAL vs. BRUSOLA

A.M. No. RTJ-99-1500

October 20, 1999

Facts:

Complainant Carual filed with the Office of the Ombudsman a sworn complaint against respondent Judge Brusola for violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Anti-Graft Practices Act. Carual is the owner of a parcel of land, a portion of which has been encroached upon by Andres Bo. The complainant sought the assistance of Atty. Cargullo who wrote Andres Bo ordering him to remove his house from the lot.

Andres Bo engaged the legal services of respondent judge who wrote Atty. Cargullo stating that the lot in question had been sold to Crispin and Ursula Bo, landlord of Andres Bo.. The complainant alleged that the respondent judges act amounted to private practice of law, in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Complainant also suspected that all the pleadings filed by Andres Bo in the civil case were prepared by respondent judge as the style of writing showed that they were drafted by a lawyer or judge.

Issue: Do judges violate the Code of Judicial Conduct by serving as administrators of the property of private individuals who are not members of his immediate family?

Held:
YES. As a general rule, a judge is prohibited from serving as executor, administrator, trustee, guardian or other fiduciary. The only exception is when the estate or trust belongs to, or the ward is a member of his immediate family, and only if his service as executor, administrator, trustee, guardian or fiduciary will not interfere with the proper performance of his judicial duties.

The Code has defined who may be considered as members of his immediate family and they are the spouse and relatives within the second degree of consanguinity. It does not appear in this case that the respondent judge is an immediate family member of the owner of the properties. The court disagrees with respondent's argument that the proscription refers only to judges acting as judicial administrator. The Code does not qualify the prohibition.

The intent of the rule is to limit a judge's involvement in the affairs and interests of private individuals to minimize the risk of conflict with his judicial duties and to allow him to devote his undivided attention to the performance of his official functions. Judges have the duty to uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary. When a member of the bench serves as administrator of the properties of private individuals, he runs the risk of losing his neutrality and impartiality, especially when the interest of his principal conflicts with that of the litigant who comes before his court.

The act of a judge of representing and defending the interest of a private individual in the disputed property constitutes private practice of law. It has been ruled that the practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court or participation in court proceedings but also includes preparation of pleadings or papers in anticipation of a litigation, giving advice to clients or persons needing the same.

The rule that judges are prohibited from engaging in the private practice of law or giving professional advice to clients is based on public policy because the rights, duties, privileges and functions of the office of an attorney-at-law are inherently incompatible with the high official functions, duties, powers, discretion and privileges of a judge.

Rule 13
Independence
A judge should not be swayed by public claim or considerations of personal popularity.

Case Digest
ATTY. GACAYAN vs. PAMINTUAN

A.M. No. RTJ-99-1483

September 17, 1999

Facts: Sarol was accused for Homicide in the RTC of Baguio City. He was arraigned and thereafter, trial followed before Judge Costales. After the prosecution rested its case, Judge Costales directed the accused to present his evidence. The accused filed a Demurrer to Evidence. Meanwhile, the respondent took over and presided in the hearing of the case.

The respondent directed the trial prosecutor and complainant Atty. Gacayan to see him in his chambers where he reportedly said the following: You see somebody died here and I cannot just dismiss this case as a result of insufficiency of evidence. I want to talk to the mother of the deceased. Consequently, he issued an order which directed the mother and brother of the deceased who were not listed as witnesses in the information to appear in the Hearing on the Demurrer to Evidence.

Respondent judge by his own initiative issued also subpoena to the witnesses who were already presented by the prosecution to attend in the hearing for Demurrer to Evidence. The witnesses who allegedly testified for the prosecution were seen talking to the respondent judge. The judge asked questions to said witnesses on whether they saw complainant Sarol stabbed the victim, which they answered no.

Complainant contends that when said witnesses testified, they categorically stated under oath that they did not witness the incident. It was obvious that respondent judge wanted the said witnesses to admit that they saw the killing. Complainant objected to the procedure being followed by respondent judge considering that the prosecution had long rested its case; and that the hearing being conducted is supposed to be a hearing on the Demurrer to Evidence, not the presentation of prosecutions evidence.

Subsequently, respondent judge ordered the arrest of Mirriam Dominguez whom he described as an eye witness to the incident. This was done without any motion from the prosecution and though there is no record whatsoever supporting said conclusion that she is an eye witness. Thereafter, respondent Judge talked alone to said witness in his chambers.

In view of the unusual interest exhibited by respondent judge in favor of the prosecution and the highly unusual procedure he was then conducting complainant filed a Motion for Inhibition against respondent judge.

Issue:

Was the respondent judge guilty of partiality?

Held: YES. The peoples confidence in the judicial system is founded not only on the magnitude of legal knowledge and the diligence of the members of the bench, but also on the highest standard of integrity and moral uprightness they are expected to possess. It is towards this sacrosant goal of ensuring the peoples faith and confidence in the judiciary that the Code of Judicial Conduct mandates the following: CANON 2- A judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities. CANON 3 A judge should perform official duties honestly, and with impartiality and diligence.

The Canons of Judicial Ethics further provides that: A judges official conduct should be free from the appearance of impropriety, and his personal behavior, not only upon the bench and in the performance of judicial duties, but also his everyday life should be beyond reproach.

A judge is not only required to be impartial; he must appear to be impartial. Fraternizing with litigants tarnishes this appearance. It was, thus, held that it is improper for a judge to meet privately with the accused without the presence of the complainant. Talking privately alone to an alleged eye witness to the incident in the seclusion of his chambers, as what transpired in this case, likewise taints this image much more so considering the circumstances surrounding the production of said witnesses.

A presiding judge, to be sure, must maintain and preserve the trust and faith of the parties-litigants. He must hold himself above reproach and suspicion. At the very first signn of lack of faith and trust in his actions, whether well grounded or not, the judge has no other alternative but to inhibit himself from the case. He should exercise his discretion in a way that the peoples faith in the Courts of Justice is not impaired. The better course for the judge under such circumstances is to disqualify himself. That way, he avoids being misunderstood, his reputation for probity and objectivity is preserved. What is more important, the ideal of impartial administration of justice is live

Rule 14
Interference to conduct of trial While a judge may properly intervene in a trial of a case to promote expedition and prevent unnecessary waste of time, or to clear up some obscurity, nevertheless, he should bear in mind that his undue interference, impatience, or participation in the examination of witnesses, or a severe attitude on his part toward witnesses, especially those who are excited or terrified by the unusual circumstances of trial, may tend to prevent the proper presentation of the cause, or the ascertainment of the truth in respect thereto.

Conversation between the judge and counsel in court is often necessary, but the judge should be studious to avoid controversies which are apt to obscure the merits of the dispute between litigants and lead to its unjust disposition. In addressing counsel, litigants, or witnesses, he should avoid a controversial tone.

He should avoid interruptions of counsel in their arguments except to clarify his mind as to their positions, and he should not be tempted to an unnecessary display of learning or a premature judgment.

Case Digest
CANEDA V. MENCHAVEZ

Facts: Complainant Atty. Caneda is counsel for defendant Virginia Guzman, in Civil Case Roberto Borromeo v. Heirs of Juan Borromeo, for judicial partition pending with Judge Mechanvezs sala.

During the Dec. 14, 2005 hearing of said partition case, the motion to segregate the inheritance shares of one of the plaintiffs, Roberto Borromeo was due to be taken up. During the hearing, the defendants agreed to a partition subject to plaintiffs withdrawal of a motion for reconsideration it filed before the SC to clear one of the areas (subject to partition) of squatters. Because the plaintiff could not withdraw the MR before the SC, Atty. Caneda suggested mediation. Judge Menchavez blurted out never mind mediation, walay hinundan na.

When Judge Menchavez checked on the progress of the case, Atty. Caneda remarked it was being delayed because no proper summons had been served on the defendants who were residing outside the country. Menchavez reacted angrily and banged his gavel & shouted I said no publication period. Afterwards, Menchavez slammed the table with his hand and went inside his chambers. Afterwards, Judge Menchavez came back with a holstered handgun and smashed it on the table, as he angrily shouted at Atty. Caneda Unsay gusto nimo? Yawa! Gahig

Atty. Caneda filed a complaint against Judge Menchavez alleging that the Judges act of challenging him inside the courtroom in the presence of many people was improper

Issue:

WON Judge Menchavez should be held liable

Held:

Yes, Judge Menchavez overstepped the norms of propriety demanded of a member of the bench by losing his cool and uttering intemperate language during the hearing.

In the courtroom, a lawyer makes submissions before a judge whose role is to hear and consider the submissions, and subsequently rule on the matter. It is not a situation where two equals, such as the opposing counsels, argue against each other. Menchavez should have coolly ruled and allowed counsel to respond to his ruling instead of proceeding in a manner that invited further arguments.

Atty. Caneda also erred when he continued to argue despite Judge Menchavezs ruling. However, Menchavez should have directed the complainant to wind up his arguments under pain of direct contempt if he persisted in his arguments. Direct contempt is not enforced by the judges act of bringing out of his weapon and asking counsel the direct question what do you want? This confrontational manner has no place in our present justice system. There are agents of the law, officers of the court & the police who can be called upon to implement contempt

Judge Menchavezs overreacting by bringing out a gun for everyone present in the court to see, even for purposes of maintaining order and decorum in court, is inexcusable in the absence of overt acts of physical aggression by a party before the court. While the New Code of Judicial Conduct requires a magistrate to maintain order and decorum in the court, the Code itself sets its limits (as provided for by Sec. 6 of Canon 6) wherein the judge himself must observe decorum by acting with dignity and courtesy to all those present in the courtroom. Judges are demanded to be always temperate, patient, and courteous both in conduct and in language.

Rule 15
Ex parte applications Judges should discourage ex parte hearing of applications for injunctions and receivership where the order may work detriment to absent parties; they should act upon ex parte applications only where the necessity for quick action is clearly shown; if this be demonstrated, then the judge should endeavor to counter act the effect of the absence of opposing counsel by a scrupulous cross-examination and investigation as to the facts and the principles of law upon which the application is based, granting relief only when fully satisfied that the law permits it and the emergency demands it.

The judge should remember that an injunction is a limitation upon the freedom of action of defendants and should not be granted lightly or inadvisedly. one applying for such relief must sustain the burden of showing clearly its necessity and this burden is increased in the absence of the party whose freedom of action is to be restrained even though only temporarily.

Case Digest
REPUBLIC V. CAGUIOA

Consolidation of 3 cases against respondent

FACTS

Case 1: Judge Caguioa issued a writ of preliminary injunction against the Republic for the implementation of a law which required the payment of duties and taxes to importers in the Subic Bay Freeport Zone, who formerly had an exemption to such taxes but was subsequently required by virtue of such law. He also granted various ex-parte motions for interventions of different but similarly situated corporations, and approved an injunction bond of P1M for all the petitioners. RA 9334

These orders were immediately implemented despite the MRs filed by the OSG. The Republic filed administrative cases against Caguioa for manifest partiality, gross ignorance of the law and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. This was acted upon by the OCA and subsequently by the CA, stating that Caguioa gravely abused his discretion for ordering the issuance of the writ of Preliminary Injunction.

Case 2: (Almost similar circumstances, different people involved) Judge Caguioa issued a writ of preliminary injunction and a TRO, to enjoin a person from acting as an officer in a Govt agency. The agency filed administrative cases against Caguioa for manifest partiality, gross ignorance of the law and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

Case 3: Caguioa ordered a Writ of Execution, after his order of dismissal of a case based on prescription. Private Petitioner filed a case for Grave Misconduct against Caguioa. The CA saw this as invalid, because the Writ should conform to the dispositive portion of the decision. The Order of dismissal did not adjudicate any rights of the parties and resolved no other matter except the dismissal of the case.

The findings of the Investigative Justice of the CA: Case 1: Guilty of gross ignorance of the law + conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Evidence on the Manifest Partiality was insufficient.

Case 2: Same as Case 1.

Case 3: Guilty of simple misconduct.

Penalty: 1-year suspension + Stern Warning.

ISSUE/S:

WON Caguioa is guilty of Gross Ignorance of the Law, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and Simple Misconduct or Rule 15 of Judicial Ethics.

HELD:

YES! Adopt findings of the CA. Caguioa Dismissed from service + forfeiture of retirement benefits except leave credits.

RATIO:

Gross Ignorance of the Law

Judge Caguioa issued the Writs of Preliminary Injunction that did not satisfy the legal requisites for its issuance, and which was enforced outside of his territorial jurisdiction. In the former, the applicants of the Writ showed no clear and unmistakable right that was material and substantial as would warrant the issuance of such Writ, and the of its urgency and necessity. In short, he issued the Writs without basis.

The requisites for the issuance of the Writ are basic and elementary, and should have been known by Caguoia. Basic rules should be at the palm of their hands. Where the law is basic, lack of conversance with it, and for transgressing the elementary jurisdictional limits of his court, a judge should be administratively liable for gross

Not Grave Misconduct

Even though Caguioa issued the Writs without basis, in this circumstance, it only amounts to simple misconduct. For grave misconduct to exist, the judicial act complained of should be corrupt, or with evident bad faith. Such conduct was not evident in the case.

Thank you Classmates!!