1.5 Objectives and outlook of this thesis
2.1.1 Plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition
31 FACTS: On May 4, 1987, Judge Masadao rendered a decision finding the accused, Jaime Tadeo, guilty of estafa. Justice JBL Reyes entered his appearance for the accused. Judge Masadao issued an order inhibiting himself from further sitting in the case on the ground that retired Justice Reyes has been among those who had recommended him to the bench. A raffle was conducted and the case was assigned to Judge Elizaga. Judge Elizaga returned the records with a letter stating his refusal to act and assailing the re-raffling of the case as uncalled for and impractical.
Grounds for Disqualification and Inhibition of Judges Under the Rules of Court
I.
Mandatory or Compulsory Disqualification (Rule 131, ROC)a. when he or his wife or his child is pecuniarily interested as heir, legatee, creditor or otherwise;
b. when he is related to either party within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity or to counsel within the 4th civil degree;
c. when he has been an executor, guardian, administrator, trustee or counsel;
d. when he has presided in an inferior court where his ruling or decision is subject to review.
II.
Voluntary Inhibition (1991, 199, 2005 BAR EXAMS)A judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion disqualify himself, for just and valid reasons other than those mentioned above. (Rule 137, Section 1)
This leaves the discretion to the judge to decide for himself questions as to whether he will desist from sitting in case for other just and valid reasons with only his conscience to guide him, unless he cannot discern for himself his inability to meet the test of the cold neutrality required of him, in which event the appellate court will see to it that he disqualifies himself.
A decision to disqualify himself is not conclusive and his competency may be determined on application for mandamus to compel him to act. Judge’s decision to continue hearing a case in which he is not legally prohibited from trying notwithstanding challenge to his objectivity may not constitute reversible error.
The filing of an administrative case against a judge does not disqualify him from hearing a case. The court has to be shown other than the filing of administrative complaint, act or conduct of judge indicative of arbitrariness or prejudice before the latter being branded as the stigma of being biased or partial.
(Lorenzo v. Marquez (1988))
DISQUALIFICATION INHIBITION Grounds Specific and exclusive No specific
grounds BUT there is a broad basis for such, i.e., good, sound ethical grounds Role of
the judicial officer
Judicial officer has no discretion to sit or try the case
The matter is left to the sound discretion of the judge
CANON 4: QUICK REFERENCE
Canon 4. Propriety and the appearance of propriety are essential to the performance of all the activities of a. judge.
Sec. 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 (a) Write, lecture, teach and participate inmay 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 (c) law, the legal system, the administration of
justice or related matters;
(d) 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.
Sec. 11. Judges shall not practice law whilst the holder of judicial office.
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.
MEMORY AID FOR SECTIONS UNDER CANON 4: • Avoidance of Impropriety (Sec. 1)
• Acceptance of Personal Restrictions (Sec.
2)
• Avoidance of Controversy (Sec. 3)
• Not participate in cases where he may be impartial (Sec. 4)
• Not allow the use of his residence by other lawyers (Sec. 5)
• Freedom of Expression (Sec. 6)
• Be informed of his financial interests (Sec.
7)
• Influence of Judicial Conduct (Sec. 8)
• Confidential Information (Sec. 9)
• Engage in other activities (Sec. 10)
• Practice of Profession (Sec. 11)
• Form associations (Sec. 12)
• Gifts, Requests, Loans (Sec. 13)
• Gifts, Requests, Loans by staff (Sec. 14)
• Permissible tokens and awards (Sec. 15)
KNOW MORE:
• Re: Sec. 1 Avoidance of impropriety –
Whatever the motive may have been, the violent action of the respondent in a public place constitutes serious misconduct and the resultant outrage of the community (Arban v. Borja (1989))
It was highly improper for a judge to have wielded a high-powered firearm in public and besieged the house of a perceived defamer of character and honor in warlike fashion and berated the object of his ire, with his firearm aimed at the victim (Saburnido v. Madrono (A.C. No. 4497.
September 26, 2001)
• Re: Sec. 9 Confidential information –
Personal knowledge of the case pending before him is not one of the causes for the disqualification of a judge under the first paragraph of Sec. 1 of Rule 137 of the Revised Rules of Court (took effect Jan. 1, 1964). But paragraph 2 of said section authorizes the judge, “in the exercise of his sound discretion, to disqualify himself from sitting in a case, for just or valid reason other than those mentioned” in par. 1.
Before 1964, a judge could not just voluntarily inhibit himself from a case. But in cases decided in 1961 and 1962, a judge was allowed to inhibit for fear that an opinion expressed by him in a letter as counsel might influence his decision and for being related to a counsel within the 4th civil degree. In 1967, a judge was allowed to voluntarily disqualify himself on grounds other than those mentioned in par. 1 of cited section. Pimentel v. Salanga: Judge should make a careful self-examination whether to disqualify himself or not in a case before him. He should exercise his discretion in a way that people’s faith in the courts of justice is not impaired. A salutary norm is that he reflects on the probability that a losing party might nurture at the back of his mind the thought that the judge had unmeritoriously titled the scales of justice against him. Judge should be commended for heeding SC ruling in
Geotina v. Gonzales: A judge, sitting on a case must at all times be fully free, disinterested, impartial and independent.
Elementary due process requires a hearing before an impartial and disinterested tribunal. A judge has both the duties of rendering a just decision and of doing it in a manner completely free from suspicion as to his fairness and as to his integrity.
Mater, Jr. v. Hon. Onofre Villaluz: Outside of pecuniary interest, relationship or previous participation in the matter that calls for adjudication, there may be other causes that could conceivably erode trait of objectivity, thus calling for inhibition. If such causes appear and prove difficult to resist, it is better for judge to disqualify himself. That way, his reputation for probity and objectivity is preserved; even more important, ideal of an administration of justice is lived up to. (Umale v. Villaluz (1973))
• Re: Sec. 11 Practice of Profession
The Court has reminded judges of the lower courts that a judge whose order is challenged in an appellate court need not file any answer, or take an active part in the proceedings unless expressly directed by order of the Court. A judge must maintain a detached attitude from the case and shall not waste his time by taking an active part in a proceeding that relates to official actuations in a case. He is merely a nominal party and has no personal interest or personality therein. Further, respondent judge, in signing and filing a comment with the court on behalf of one of the parties, engaged in the private practice of law. The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court or participation in court proceedings but includes preparation of pleadings or papers in anticipation of litigation. Under Section 35, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, and Rule 5.07 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, judges are prohibited from engaging in the private practice of law. This 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.
(Tuazon v. Cloribel (2001))
• Re: Sec. 13 Gifts, requests and loans –
Receiving money from a party litigant is the kind of gross and flaunting misconduct on the part of the judge, who is charged with the responsibility of administering the law and rendering justice. Members of the judiciary should display not only the highest integrity but must, at all times, conduct themselves in such manner as to be beyond reproach and suspicion.
(Ompoc v. Torre (1989))