JUDICIAL CONDUCT

INSTRUCTOR: Ma. Clarita C. Tabin

MONDAY CLASS: 7:30-9:30

Balantac, Shirley H.

Benaoe, Ryan M.

Elmo, Eleomore N.

Malao, Clarrence Kate F.

Ngipol, Martin

Quiban, Rechelle M.

Tamayo, Dona Mae B.

Canon 1. INDEPENDENCE
Judicial independence is a prerequisite to the rule of law and a fundamental guarantee of a fair
trial. A judge shall therefore uphold and exemplify judicial independence in both its individual
and institutional aspects.

The concept of the judicial independence surely includes the ability of a judge to decide each
case according to an objective evaluation and application of the law, without the influence of
outside factors.

SECTIONS UNDER CANON 1:

1) Independent judicial function (Sec. 1)
2) Outside pressure (Sec. 2)
3) Influencing outcome of litigation
4) Influence on judicial conduct (Sec. 4)
5) Independence from executive and legislative (Sec. 5)
6) Independence from society and particular parties (Sec. 6)
7) Safeguards for judicial independence (Sec. 7)
8) Promote Public confidence (Sec. 8)

Sec. 1. INDEPENDENT JUDICIAL FUNCTION

Judges shall exercise the judicial function independently on the basis of their assessment of
the facts and in accordance with a conscientious understanding of the law, free of any
extraneous influence, inducement, pressure, threat or interference, direct or indirect, from
any quarter or for any reason.

Mass media has its duty to fearlessly but faithfully inform the public about events and persons. However,
when a case has received wide and sensational publicity, the trial court should be doubly careful not
only to be fair and impartial but also to give the appearance of complete objectivity in its handling of the
case. [Go v. CA, 206 SCRA 165]

Sec. 2. OUTSIDE PRESSURE

In performing judicial duties, Judges shall be independent from judicial colleagues in respect
of decisions which the judge is obliged to make independently.

The discretion of the Court to grant bail must be based on the Court’s determination as to whether or not
the evidence of guilt is strong. This discretion may be exercised only after the evidence has been
submitted at the summary hearing conducted pursuant to Sec. 7 of Rule 114 of the Rules.
Respondent’s admission that he granted bail to an accused upon the request of a Congressman,
despite his belief that the evidence of guilt against said is strong, is indeed reprehensible. [Tahil v. Eisma
1975]
 Sec. 3. INFLUENCING OUTCOME OF LITIGATION
Judges shall refrain from influencing in any manner the outcome of litigation or dispute
pending before another court or administrative agency.

Interference by members of the bench in pending suits with the purpose of influencing the course or the
result of the litigation subvert the independence of the judiciary.
[Sabitsana, Jr. v. Villamor, 202 SCRA 445 (1991)]

Sec. 4. INFLUENCE ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT

Judges shall not allow family, social or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or
judgment. The prestige of judicial office shall not be used or lent to advance the private
interests of others, nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a
special position to influence the judge.
Constant company with a lawyer tends to breed intimacy and camaraderie to the point that favors in the
future may be asked from respondent judge which he may find hard to resist. The actuation of
respondent Judge of eating and drinking in public places with a lawyer who has pending cases in his
sala may well arouse suspicion in the public mind, thus tending to erode the trust of the litigants in the
impartiality of the judge. [Padilla v. Zantua (1994)]

Sec. 5. INDEPENDENCE FROM EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE

Judges shall not only be free from inappropriate connections with and influence by the executive and
legislative branches of government but must also appear to be free therefrom to a reasonable
observer.

Sec. 6. INDEPENDENCE FROM SOCIETY AND PARTICULAR PARTIES

Judges shall be independent in relation to society in general and in relation to the particular parties to
a dispute which he or she has to adjudicate.

Respondent judge act of sending a member of his staff to talk with complainant and show copies of his
draft decisions, and his act of meeting with litigants outside the office premises beyond office hours
violate the standard of judicial conduct required to be observed by members of the Bench. [Tan v.
Rosete (2004)]
 Sec. 7. SAFEGUARDS FOR JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE
Judges shall encourage and uphold safeguards for the discharge of judicial duties in order to
maintain and enhance the institutional and operational independence of the judiciary.

The Code of Judicial Conduct mandates judges to administer justice without delay and directs every
judge to dispose of the court’s business promptly within the period prescribed by the law and the rules…
Delay ultimately affects the image of the judiciary. Failure to comply with the mandate of the Constitution
and of the Code of Judicial Conduct constitutes serious misconduct, which is detrimental to the honor
and integrity of a judicial office. Inability to decide a case despite the ample time prescribed is
inexcusable, constitutes gross.

inefficiency, and warrants administrative sanction of the defaulting judge. [Salud v. Alumbres, (2003)]
Sec. 8. PROMOTE PUBLIC CONFIDENCE
Judges shall exhibit and promote high standards of judicial conduct in order to reinforce public
confidence in the judiciary which is fundamental to the maintenance of judicial independence.

Canon 2. INTEGRITY
Integrity is essential not only to the proper discharge of the judicial office but also to the
personal demeanor of judges.

A judge should not uphold his integrity and is not being influenced by the race, gender, political
status, wealth or relationship of the party or lawyer before him.

SECTIONS UNDER CANON 2

1) Conduct above reproach (Sec. 1)
2) Reaffirm people’s faith (Sec. 2)
3) Disciplinary action (Sec. 3)

Sec. 1. CONDUCT ABOVE REPROACH

Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in
the view of a reasonable observer.

Ignorance of the law is a mark of incompetence

When the inefficiency springs from a failure to consider so basic and elemental a rule, a law or principle
in the discharge of his duties, a judge is either too incompetent and undeserving of the position and title
he holds, or he is too vicious that the oversight or omission was deliberately done in bad faith and in
grave abuse of judicial authority. In both instances, the judge's dismissal is in order. [ Macalintal v. Teh
(1997 )]
 Sec. 2 REAFFIRM PEOPLE’S FAITH
The behavior and conduct of judges must reaffirm the people's faith in the integrity of the judiciary.
Justice must not merely be done but must also be seen to be done.

“Justice must not merely be done but must also be seen to be done.”
This phrase emphasizes the importance of the public perception of the judiciary, not because the
judicial department intends to be influenced thereby, but because it is essential that public confidence is
always reposed in the judicial systems and processes.

A judge must not only be honest but also appear to be so; not only be a good judge, but also a good
person. [Dawa v. De Asa (1998)]

Sec. 3. DISCIPLINARY ACTION

Judges should take or initiate appropriate disciplinary measures against lawyers or court personnel
for unprofessional conduct of which the judge may have become aware.

Oftentimes…leniency provides the court employees the opportunity to commit minor transgressions of
the laws and slight breaches of official duty ultimately leading to vicious delinquencies. The respondent
judge should constantly keep a watchful eye on the conduct of his employees. He should realize that big
fires start small. His constant scrutiny of the behavior of his employees would deter any abuse on the
part of the latter in the exercise of their duties. Then, his subordinates would check that any
misdemeanor will not remain unchecked. The slightest semblance of impropriety on the part of the
employees of the court in the performance of their official duties stirs ripples of public suspicion and
public distrust of the judicial administrators. The slightest breach of duty by and the slightest
irregularity in the conduct of court officers and employees detract from the dignity of the courts and
erode the faith of the people in the judiciary. [Buenaventurav. Benedicto (1971)]