You are on page 1of 3

Canon 3

A judge should perform official duties honestly, and with impartiality and diligence.

Rule 3.01 - a judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence.

Gaspar Bandoy vs. Judge Jose Jacinto Jr. A.M. RTJ 14-2399, November 19, 2014

Facts of the Case


Petitioner Gaspar Bandoy (Bandoy) is facing criminal charges under the jurisdiction of
the respondent, Judge Jose Jacinto Jr (Judge Jacinto Jr.). Bandoy asserts that Jacinto Jr.
committed grave abuse of authority manifesting bias and impartiality.
Bandoy alleges that Judge Jacinto Jr. Is impartial when he allowed the opposing party to
postpone the arraignment for 7 times, due to the opposing party’s non-appearance for failure to
locate him at his given address. That despite these supposed obvious court defiance, Judge
Jacinto, Jr. remained lenient and seemingly tolerated his continuous non-appearance in the
court's subsequent scheduled hearings.
Bandoy also alleges that despite that Judge Jacinto, Jr. showed unreasonable bias towards
him in his lack of interest to dispose of the case of serious illegal detention despite oppositions’
obvious dilatory tactics and unjustified absences when his appearance was necessary

Issue
Whether or not Judge Jacinto’s may be held administratively liable for impartiality

Held
The Supreme Court found him guilty of violating Rule 3.01, Canon 3 of the Code of
Judicial Conduct mandates that a judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional
competence.
The court finds the leniency and inaction of the respondent Judge in the arraignment of
the opposing party, postponing it seven (7) times from 2007 to 2011, as showing of bias and
impartiality on his part.
The Code of Judicial Conduct emphasizes judges, as officers of the court, have the duty
to see to it that justice is dispensed with evenly and fairly. Not only must they be honest and
impartial, but they must also appear to be honest and impartial in the dispensation of justice.
Judges should make sure that their acts are circumspect and do not arouse suspicion in the minds
of the public. When they fail to do so, such acts may cast doubt upon their integrity and
ultimately the judiciary in general.
Canon 3
A judge should perform official duties honestly, and with impartiality and diligence.

Rule 3.05 - A judge shall dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the
required periods.

Gershon Dulang vs. Judge Mary Regencia, A.M. MTJ 12-1806, June 02, 2014

Facts of the Case


An ejectment case was submitted for resolution before the court of respondent Judge
Mary Regencia (Judge Regencia) on October 17, 2008. The respondent judge rendered the
judgement on February 18, 2011.
Petitioner alleges that the delay in the judgment of the ejectment case amount to gross
negligence in the part of the respondent Judge.

Issue
Whether or not Judge Regencia may be held administratively liable for undue delay in
rendering a decision

Held
The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent Judge is guilty of violating Rule 3.05,
Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, that judges should be imbued with a high sense of duty
and responsibility in the discharge of their obligation to administer justice promptly.
The Rules of Summary Procedure provides that ejectment cases must be decided thirty
(30) days from the submission of the last affidavit or position paper. Judge Regencia failed to
observe such rule, rendering the decision after two (2) years and four (4) months following the
case submission.
Prompt disposition of cases is attained basically through the efficiency and dedication to
duty of judges. If judges do not possess those traits, delay in the disposition of cases is inevitable
to the prejudice of the litigants.
Canon 4 - Propriety
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.
Section. 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.

Antonio Lorenzana, vs. Judge Ma. Cecilia Austria; A.M. No. RTJ-09- 2200, April 2, 2014

Facts of the Case


Respondent, Judge Ma. Cecilia Austria joined the social networking site Friendster. The
Judge posted photos of herself wearing an “off-shouldered” suggestive dress and made this
available for public viewing. The petitioner alleges that the Judge in posting such photos is
displaying impropriety on her party.

Issue
Whether or not Judge Jacinto’s may be held administratively liable for impropriety

Held
The Supreme Court found her guilty of violating Sections 1 and 2 of Canon 4 of the Code
of Judicial Conduct, or the “Propriety and the appearance of propriety are essential to the
performance of all the activities of a judge.”
The court ruled clarified that there is no prohibition on judges from joining social
networking sites and activities. What the law prohibits are acts that are deemed improper on the
part of the judges. In this case the court reminds that Judges does not shed off their status in the
cyberspace. They are expected to act in accordance with the ethical responsibilities and duties
that every judge is expected to follow in his/her everyday activities.
Therefore the act of the respondent judge in posting pictures that are considered to be lewd
in social networking site for public viewing is deemed to be improper.
The Code of Judicial Conduct prohibits impropriety and even the appearance of
impropriety in all of their activities.