Extrajudicial activities

of judges /justices
Problem Areas in Legal Ethics
Arellano University School of Law Arellano Law Foundation
2014-2015

The previous Canons of Judicial Ethics and

the Code of Judicial Conduct is a supplement
to the new Code

Canons of Judicial Ethics and the Code of Judicial Conduct,

promulgated on 5 September 1989, shall take effect on 20 October
1989
This New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary
shall take effect on the first day of June 2004
This Code, which shall hereafter be referred to as the New Code of
Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, supersedes the
Canons of Judicial Ethics and the Code of Judicial Conduct
heretofore applied in the Philippines to the extent that the
provisions or concepts therein are embodied in this Code:
Provided, however, that in case of deficiency or absence of
specific provisions in this New Code, the Canons of Judicial
Ethics and the Code of Judicial Conduct shall be applicable in a
suppletory character.
2

CANON 4
PROPRIETY
New Code of Judicial Conduct [2004]

Propriety and the appearance of propriety are essential to the

performance of all the activities of a judge.

SECTION 1. Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of

impropriety in all of their activities.

SEC. 2. As a subject of constant public scrutiny, judges must accept

personal restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the
ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly. In
particular, judges shall conduct themselves in a way that is
consistent with the dignity of the judicial office.

SEC. 3. Judges shall, in their personal relations with individual

members of the legal profession who practice regularly in their
court, avoid situations which might reasonably give rise to the
suspicion or appearance of favoritism or partiality.

SEC. 4. Judges shall not participate in the determination of a case

in which any member of their family represents a litigant or is
associated in any manner with the case.

SEC. 5. Judges shall not allow the use of their residence by a

member of the legal profession to receive clients of the latter or of
other members of the legal profession.

SEC. 6. Judges, like any other citizen, are entitled to freedom of

expression, belief, association and assembly, but in exercising such
rights, they shall always conduct themselves in such a manner as
to preserve the dignity of the judicial office and the impartiality
and independence of the judiciary.

SEC. 7. Judges shall inform themselves about their personal

fiduciary financial interests and shall make reasonable efforts to be
informed about the financial interests of members of their family.

SEC. 8. Judges shall not use or lend the prestige of the judicial
office to advance their private interests, or those of a member of
their family or of anyone else, nor shall they convey or permit
others to convey the impression that anyone is in a special position
improperly to influence them in the performance of judicial duties.

SEC. 9. Confidential information acquired by judges in their

judicial capacity shall not be used or disclosed by for any other
purpose related to their judicial duties.

SEC. 10. Subject to the proper performance of judicial duties,

judges may

(a) Write, lecture, teach and participate in activities concerning the

law, the legal system, the administration of justice or related matters;

(b) Appear at a public hearing before an official body concerned with

matters relating to the law, the legal system, the administration of
justice or related matters;

(c) Engage in other activities if such activities do not detract from the
dignity of the judicial office or otherwise interfere with the
performance of judicial duties.
6

SEC. 12. Judges may form or join associations of judges or

participate in other organizations representing the interests of
judges.

SEC. 13. Judges and members of their families shall neither ask for,
nor accept, any gift, bequest, loan or favor in relation to anything
done or to be done or omitted to be done by him or her in
connection with the performance of judicial duties.

SEC. 14. Judges shall not knowingly permit court staff or others
subject to their influence, direction or authority, to ask for, or
accept, any gift, bequest, loan or favor in relation to anything done
or to be done or omitted to be done in connection with their duties
or functions.

SEC. 15. Subject to law and to any legal requirements of public

disclosure, judges may receive a token gift, award or benefit as
appropriate to the occasion on which it is made provided that
such gift, award or benefit might not reasonably be perceived as
intended to influence the judge in the performance of judicial
duties or otherwise give rise to an appearance of partiality.

Private practice of law prohibited

Rule 138 RRC Sec. 35. Certain attorneys not to practice. - No judge
or other official or employee of the superior courts or of the Office
of the Solicitor General, shall engage in private practice as a
member of the bar or give professional advice to clients.

Canon 5, Rule 5.07 of the Code of Judicial Conduct states that: A

judge shall not engage in the private practice of law. Unless
prohibited by the Constitution or law, a judge may engage in the
practice of any other profession provided that such practice will
not conflict or tend to conflict with judicial functions.

Why a judge cannot practice law

These provisions are based on public policy for there is no

question that 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.
It also aims to ensure that judges give their full time and
attention to their judicial duties, prevent them from extending
special favors to their own private interests and assure the
public of their impartiality in the performance of their
functions.
These objectives are dictated by a sense of moral decency and
desire to promote the public interest. - Ziga v. Judge Arejola,
A.M. No. MTJ-99-1203. June 10, 2003

10

Drafting complainants affidavit is

practice of law

Respondent acted as a lawyer for complainant and her father-inlaw when he drafted complainants affidavit which became the
basis of a complaint for estafa filed against Heidi Navarra.
By acting as counsel for complainant and the latters father-in-law
in a case filed in his court, respondent compromised his neutrality
and independence. How could he then be expected to decide with
objectivity and fairness the cases in which he has acted as a lawyer
for the plaintiff or complainant?
Respondents misconduct in this case is further compounded by
the fact that he rendered the legal services in question using
government facilities during office hours. - Biboso v. Judge
Villanueva, A.M. No. MTJ-01-1356. April 16, 2001

11

Instances when a judge canserving as

executor, administrator, trustee, guardian or
other fiduciary

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. Carual v. Brusola A.M.
No. RTJ-99-1500. October 20, 1999

12

 Judges family
Includes a judges:
1. spouse,
2. son,
3. daughter,
4. son-in-law,
5. daughter-in-law, and
6. any other relative by consanguinity or affinity within the sixth civil
degree, or
7. person who is a companion or employee of the judge and who
lives in the judges household.

13

Rendering legal opinion proscribed

To escape our disciplining wrath, respondent judge argues that the

"resolution" he issued was a mere expression of his legal opinion and
not a judgment or order "which adjudicates and settles rights and
obligations of the parties." He said that the petition for declaratory relief,
earlier quoted, is not a pleading, but a mere letter-request for a legal
opinion. Hence, complainant Gozun was not entitled to notice and
hearing.
Besides, even assuming arguendo that the resolution was a mere legal
opinion, still respondent must know that rendering of "legal opinions" is
not the function of a judge. The function of the court is limited to
adjudication of actual controversies involving rights which are legally
demandable or enforceable. Unlike lawyers, judges cannot render legal
advice. Judges are expressly prohibited from engaging in the private
practice of law or from giving professional advice to clients. Gozun v.
Judge Liangco A.M. No. MTJ-97-1136. August 30, 2000

14

A judge who violates the judicial code of

conduct also violates the lawyers oath

We ruled that because membership in the bar is an integral

qualification for membership in the bench, the moral fitness of a
judge also reflects the latters moral fitness as a lawyer. A judge
who disobeys the basic rules of judicial conduct also violates the
lawyers oath. - OCA v. Atty. Liangco, A. C. No. 5355 [2011]

15

As attorney-in-fact in actual litigations

Except for the initiatory pleading, respondent Judge signed the

pleadings relative to the civil case and participated in some of the
hearings held relative thereto.
The proscription against the private practice of law, or just giving
professional advice to clients, by Judges is based on public policy.
The prohibition applies equally well to the appointment of and
acceptance by judges to the post of attorney-in-fact in actual
litigations, a fact which is also, by and large, incompatible with the
high office, functions, prestige and privileges of a judge. It is of no
moment, albeit worse, that the case where he accepts such
designation as attorney-in-fact is one that pends before his own
court. - Sps. Gragera v. Judge Francisco, A. M. No. RTJ-021670. June 26, 2003

16

A.M. NO. 13-05-05-SC

RE: REVISION OF
RESTRICTIONS ON TEACHING HOURS OF
JUSTICES, JUDGES AND PERSONNEL OF THE JUDICIARY
EN BANC RESOLUTION DATED 01 APRIL 2014
1.

Teaching shall be allowed for not more than ten (10) hours a
week. On regular working days (Monday through Friday),
teaching shall not be conducted earlier than 5:30 p.m.

2. An application for permission to teach if filed by a judge shall be

accompanied by a certification of the Clerk of Court concerned
regarding the condition of the court docket showing:
(a) the number of pending cases; and
(b) the number of cases disposed of within a three-month period
prior to the start of the semester in his or her respective sala.

17

An application for permission to teach filed by a

judge or justice shall require approval as follows:
a.

If filed by a judge from a lower level court, it shall be subject to the

approval of the executive judge concerned;

b. If filed by an executive judge, it shall be subject to the approval of

the Court Administrator;
c. If filed by an Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals, the
Sandiganbayan, or the Court of Tax Appeals, it shall be subject to
the approval of the presiding justice concerned;
d. If filed by the Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals, the
Sandiganbayan, or the Court of Tax Appeals, it shall be subject to
the approval of the Chief Justice.
18

An application for permission to teach filed by

court personnel shall require approval as follows
a. If filed by court personnel from a lower level court, it shall be
subject to the approval of the executive judge concerned;
b. If filed by court personnel from the Court of Appeals, the
Sandiganbayan, or the Court of Tax Appeals, it shall be subject to
the approval of the presiding justice or the executive justice
concerned, as the case may be;
c. If filed by Supreme Court personnel belonging to a chamber of an
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, it shall be subject to the
approval of the Associate Justice concerned, who will notify the
Chief Justice and the Office of Administrative Services, Supreme
Court, of this approval;
d. If filed by other Supreme Court personnel, it shall be subject to the
approval of the Chief Justice.
19

Disposition of applications
5. The approving authority may deny the application or allow less
than ten (10) hours of teaching a week, depending on the
applicants performance record.
6. At the end of every year, an approving authority shall submit to the
Chief Justice a report on the applications submitted for the year
and the respective status of, or action taken on, each application.

20

Failure to secure permit to teach

To justify his failure to obtain a permit from the Supreme

Court, he said that the University of the East did not require
him to submit one.

Respondent judges failure to accomplish the Request for

Permission to Teach form prescribed in Circular No. 50-97, dated
July 18, 1997 is inexcusable. It is a clear violation of the judiciary
rules and regulations, indicating respondent judges disregard of
the authority of the Supreme Court. For no matter how
insignificant or inconsequential the circular may seem to
respondent judge, he should have complied with it. - Jabon v.
Judge Sibanah E. Usman, A.M. No. RTJ-02-1713 [2005]

21

Proper for judges to attend meetings of

members of the bar

It is not necessary to the proper performance of judicial duty that

judges should live in retirement or seclusion; it is desirable that, so
far as the reasonable attention to the completion of their
work will permit, they continue to mingle in social intercourse,
and that they should not discontinue their interests in or
appearance at meetings of members at the bar.

A judge should, however, in pending or prospective litigation

before him be scrupulously careful to avoid such action as may
reasonably tend to waken the suspicion that his social or business
relations or friendships constitute an element in determining his
judicial course.- Abundo v. Judge Manio, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ98-1416. August 6, 1999

22

Judge eating lunch with counsel

For respondent judge to eat lunch with counsel is not wrong

per se. The Canons, however, provides that as much as possible he
should be scrupulously careful to avoid any suspicion that his
social or business or friendly relationship is an element in
determining his judicial course.

Knowing that Atty. Verano, Jr., is counsel of the petitioner in an

annulment case pending before him, the respondent judge should
have thought twice about joining counsel for lunch,
especially in the courtroom at that. Pertierra v. Judge Lerma,
A.M. No. RTJ-03-1799. September 12, 2003

23

Political activities of judges

Allowed : A judge is entitled to entertain personal views on political

questions.
Prohibited: But to avoid suspicion of political partisanship:
1. a judge shall not make political speeches, 2. a judge shall not
contribute to party funds
3. a judge shall not publicly endorse candidates for political office
or participate in other partisan political activities. - Rule 5.10,
Canon 5, of the Code of Judicial Conduct

24

Engaging in partisan political activity

improper under Civil Service Law

Pres. Decree No. 807 (Civil Service Law) clearly states:

Section 45. No officer or employee in the Civil Service including

members of the Armed Forces, shall engage directly or indirectly
in any partisan political activity or take part in any election
except to vote nor shall be use his official authority or influence to
coerce the political activity of any other person or body. Nothing
herein provided shall be understood to prevent any officer or
employee from expressing his views on current political
problems or issues, or from mentioning the names of
candidates for public office whom he supports: ...

25

Engaging in political activity

Respondent started circulating handbills/letters addressed to

electoral constituents in the second district of Bulacan indicating
his intention to run for a congressional seat.

For having held himself out as a congressional candidate while

still a member of the Bench, Respondent took advantage of his
position to boost his candidacy, demeaned the stature of his office,
and must be pronounced guilty of gross misconduct. - Vistan v.
Judge Nicolas A.M. No. MTJ-87-79 [1991]

26

Filing of a certificate of candidacy

When he was appointed as a judge, he took an oath to uphold

the law, yet in filing a certificate of candidacy as a party-list
representative in the May 1998 elections without giving up his
judicial post, Judge Limbona violated not only the law, but the
constitutional mandate that no officer or employee in the civil
service shall engage directly or indirectly, in any
electioneering or partisan political campaign.

The filing of a certificate of candidacy is a partisan political

activity as the candidate thereby offers himself to the electorate
for an elective post. - Limbona v. Judge Limbona, A.M. No.
SCC-98-4 March 22, 2011

27

Limit of judges journalistic writing

Complainant alleged that respondent used his newspaper column

to ventilate his biases or personal anger at people or institutions.

Complainant believes that respondent judge should not engage

in active, sensational, and free-for-all journalistic writing
because such act degrades the judicial system and compromises
his impartiality as an administrator of justice.

28

Cont

Respondents writing of active and vicious editorials

compromises his duties as judge in the impartial administration of
justice, for his views printed on newspapers reflect on his office as
well as on the public officers that he challenges.

Not only does he act as its contributor or columnist, he is also its

publisher, editor and legal adviser. Although the Code of
Judicial Conduct allows a judge to engage in certain lawful
activities, they should not interfere with the performance of
judicial duties nor detract from the dignity of the court. - Galang v.
Judge Santos G.R. No. MTJ-99-1197 [1999]

29

Judge cannot be appointed to executive

position in any enterprise

Circular No. 6 dated April 10, 1987 strictly enjoins all Judges, Clerks
of Court and Sheriffs not to accept the position of director or
any other position in any electric cooperative or other
enterprises, or to resign immediately from such position if they
are already holding the same so as not to prejudice the expeditious
and proper administration of justice.
In violation of this circular, Judge Estrada, who was appointed to
the judiciary on May 17, 1994, did not resign from the Board of
Directors of the Rural Bank of Labrador until May 31, 1997. - Re:
Inhibition of Judge Bienvenido R. Estrada A.M. No. 98-1-32RTC July 29, 1998

30

Judge should not accept any position in any

business enterprise
RULE 5.01 - A judge may engage in the following activities
provided that they do not interfere with the performance of
judicial duties or detract from the dignity of the court:
xxx
(d) serve as an officer, director, trustee, or non-legal advisor of a
non-profit or non-political educational, religious, charitable,
fraternal, or civic organization.

RULE 5.03 - Subject to the provisions of the proceeding rule, a

judge may hold and manage investments but should not serve
as officer, director, manager or advisor, or employee of any
business except as director of a family business of the judge. Canons of Judicial Ethics and the Code of Judicial Conduct
31

Not good for judges to engage in

business

Indeed, it is not good for judges to engage in business except only

to the extent allowed by Rule 5.03 of the Code of Judicial
Conduct which provides:

Subject to the provisions of the preceding rule, a judge may hold and
manage investments but should not serve as an officer, director,
manager, advisor, or employee of any business except as director
of a family business of the judge.
- Berin and Alorro v. Judge Barte A.M. No. MTJ-02-1443. July
31, 2002

32

Limits of financial and business dealings

Refrain from financial and business dealings that tend to:

1. reflect adversely on the courts impartiality,

2. interfere with the proper performance of judicial activities, or
3. increase involvement with lawyers or persons likely to come before
the court.
- Berin and Alorro v. Judge Barte A.M. No. MTJ-02-1443. July 31, 2002
citing Rule 5.02 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics and the Code of
Judicial Conduct

33

Act of writing a letter to opposing counsel

and defending a right amounts to private
practice of law

We also find merit in complainant's contention that respondent's act of

writing to Atty. Cargullo and defending the right of Andres Bo to possess
the lot in dispute amounts to private practice of law.

The tenor of the letter shows that respondent, as representative of Andres

Bo, was defending the latter's rights over the disputed property.
Respondent's act 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, etc. - Carual v. Brusola
A.M. No. RTJ-99-1500. October 20, 1999

34

As agent in the sale of the subject

property

By allowing himself to act as agent in the sale of the subject

property, respondent judge has increased the possibility of his
disqualification to act as an impartial judge in the event that
a dispute involving the said contract of sale arises.
Also, the possibility that the parties to the sale might plead
before his court is not remote and his business dealings with
them might not only create suspicion as to his fairness but also to
his ability to render it in a manner that is free from any suspicion
as to its fairness and impartiality and also as to the judges
integrity. - Rosauro v. Judge Kallos A.M. No. RTJ-03-1796 February
10, 2006

35

Financial and business dealings

Judge can engage in financial and business dealings provide:
1. such will not reflect adversely on the courts impartiality.
2. will not interfere with the proper performance of judicial activities.
3. will not increase involvement with lawyers or persons likely to
come before the court.
A judge should so manage investments and other financial
interests as to minimize the number of cases giving grounds for
disqualification. - Catbagan v. Judge Barte, A.M. No. MTJ-021452. April 06, 2005

36

Sheer presence - as a member of the Judiciary

- would be sufficient suggestion of persuasion
and influence

As a member of the bench, the respondent judge should realize

that his presence, opinion and participation in any
proceeding could slant the evaluation and resolution of the case
in favor of (the) party he identifies himself with. A judge need not
utter any word for his sheer presence - as a member of the
Judiciary - would be sufficient suggestion of persuasion and
influence.
In this case, the respondent judge's presence and participation
in the proceedings were to the advantage of his relatives, the
heirs of Dr. Cosme T. Valdez, Sr. That his efforts failed to
influence the DARAB, for the motion filed by the Valdez heirs in
DARAB Case No. 282-T-93 for contempt was dismissed, has no
relevance. - Garcia, et. al. v. Judge Valdez, A.M. No. MTJ-981156 [1998]
37

Giving moral support to a family member by

attending the hearing is improper

Judge Dojillo admitted that he was present during the mentioned

hearings but explained that he did not sit beside his brothers
lawyer but in the area reserved for the public; and that the
main reason why he was there was to observe how election
protests are conducted as he has never conducted one. His
other reason was to give moral support to his brother. - Vidal
v. Judge Dojillo, Jr. A.M. No. MTJ-05-1591 [2005]

38

Objection from complainant or counsel is

immaterial

Although concern for family members is deeply ingrained in the Filipino

culture, respondent, being a judge, should bear in mind that he is also
called upon to serve the higher interest of preserving the integrity of
the entire judiciary.

The fact that neither complainant nor his counsel objected to the
presence of respondent during the hearing is immaterial. - Vidal v.
Judge Dojillo, Jr. A.M. No. MTJ-05-1591 [2005]

39

Use of letterhead by a judge

In other words, the respondent Judges transgression was not per

se in the use of the letterhead, but in not being very careful and
discerning in considering the circumstances surrounding the use
of his letterhead and his title. - Ladignon v. Judge Garong, A.M. No.
MTJ-08-1712 [2008]

Hence, respondent judges use of the court heading outside of

judicial business warrants disciplinary action for violation of the
Code of Judicial Conduct particularly Section 1, Canon 4.

40

Use of ordinary bond papers and placing his

official station as return address

The Judges claim that he used an ordinary bond papers and

placed thereon his official station as return address is not
totally without merit.

For, indeed, this is not an unusual practice and it would be

hypocritical to deny its occurrence at all levels of the Judiciary. For
example, some members of the Judiciary may use a social card
with the letterhead of their office to indicate their address as
well as their station within the judicial hierarchy; some also
use notepads bearing their names, designation and station. Ladignon v. Judge Garong, A.M. No. MTJ-08-1712 [2008]

41

Use of courts stationery

The Court also finds respondent Judge liable for violating Rule 2.03
of the Code in using official stationery for his correspondence
with complainant and the latters counsel regarding Lot No.
1470. A courts stationery, with its official letterhead, should
only be used for official correspondence. By using his salas
stationery other than for official purposes, respondent Judge
evidently used the prestige of his office to benefit Guererro (and
himself) in violation of Rule 2.0322 of the Code. - Rosauro v.
Judge Kallos A.M. No. RTJ-03-1796 February 10, 2006

Respondent Judge should know that a courts letterhead should be

used only for official correspondence. - Oktubre v. Judge
Velasco A.M. No. MTJ 02-1444. July 22, 2004

42

Judge required tenants to pay at MTC

Respondent Judge aggravates his liability when, in his letters to the

tenants, he further required them to pay their rent at the MTC
Maasin, although he was then staying at the Paler building.
By these calculated steps, respondent Judge in the words of Rule
2.03, clearly intended to use the prestige of his judicial office
to advance the interest of his maternal co-heirs. Oktubre v.
Judge Velasco A.M. No. MTJ 02-1444. July 22, 2004

43

Thank you for your attention!!

44