“Member of immediate family” shall be limited to the spouse and relative within the second degree of consanguinity. As a family, a judge shall not:
a. Serve in proceedings that might come before the court of said judge; or
b. Act as such contrary to rule 5.02 to 5.05.
PRACTICE OF LAW AND OTHER PROFESSION
Rule 5.07, Canon 5, CJC: 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.
FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE
Rule 5.08, Canon 5, CJC: A judge shall make full financial disclosure as required by law.
Rule 5.09, Canon 5, CJC: A judge shall not accept appointment or designation to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions.
EXTRAJUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS
Rule 5.10, Canon 10, CJC: A judge is entitled to entertain personal views on political questions. But to avoid suspicion of political partisanship, a judge shall not make political speeches, contribute to party fund, publicly endorse candidates for political office or participate in other partisan political activities.
POLITICAL ACTIVITIES
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
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.
185
ACADEMICS CHAIR:LESTER JAY ALAN E.FLORES II
U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N T O T O M A S 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)
187
ACADEMICS CHAIR:LESTER JAY ALAN E.FLORES II
U N I V E R S I T Y O F S A N T O T O M A S 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
A: A judge may be disciplined by the Supreme Court based solely on the basis of the complaint