Code of Judicial

Conduct
Basic Legal Ethics
Section A
CANON 3 - IMPARTIALITY
Impartiality is essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office. It applies not only to the
decision itself but also to the process by which the decision is made

 SECTION. 5. Judges shall disqualify themselves from participating in any proceedings in

which they are unable to decide the matter impartially or in which it may appear to a
reasonable observer that they are unable to decide the matter impartially. Such proceedings
include, but are not limited to, instances where:

 5.1 (a) The judge has actual bias or prejudice concerning a party or personal knowledge of
disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceedings;
CASE DIGEST ( Proof of Bias and Prejudice)
Lorenzana vs. Austria, A.M. No. RTJ - 09- 2200, April 2, 2014

 FACTS:
Last January 21, 2008, the complainant alleged that in the course of SP. Proc. No. 06-7993,
the respondent committed Gross Ignorance of the Law, Grave Abuse of Authority, Gross
Misconduct, Grave Incompetence, Irregularity in the Performance of Duty, Grave Bias and
Partiality, Lack of Circumspection, Conduct Unbecoming of a Judge, Failure to Observe the
Reglementary Period and Violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

The respondent conducted informal meetings (which she termed as "consultative meetings"
in her Order dated May 11, 2007) in places outside her official jurisdiction (i.e., a first class
golf club, a hotel and sports club facilities in Metro Manila) and where she arbitrarily dictated
the terms, parameters and features of the rehabilitation plan she wanted to approve for SCP.
She also announced in the meetings that she would prepare the rehabilitation plan for SCP.
CASE DIGEST ( Proof of Bias and Prejudice)
Lorenzana vs. Austria, A.M. No. RTJ - 09- 2200, April 2, 2014

 ISSUE: Whether or not the allegation of bias and partiality on the part of the respondent is valid
 HELD:
The allegations of grave abuse of authority, irregularity in the performance of duty, grave bias
and partiality, and lack of circumspection are devoid of merit because the complainant failed to
establish the respondent’s bad faith, malice or ill will. The complainant merely pointed to
circumstances based on mere suppositions. These, by themselves, however, are not sufficient
to prove the accusations. Mere allegation is not evidence and is not equivalent to proof.
Unless the acts were committed with fraud, dishonesty, corruption, malice or ill-will, bad faith, or
deliberate intent to do an injustice, the respondent judge may not be held administratively liable
for gross misconduct, ignorance of the law or incompetence of official acts in the exercise of
judicial functions and duties, particularly in the adjudication of cases.
The allegations of bias and partiality on the part of the respondent is baseless. The truth about
the respondent’s alleged partiality cannot be determined by simply relying on the complainant’s
verified complaint. Bias and prejudice cannot be presumed, in light especially of a judge’s
sacred obligation under his oath of office to administer justice without respect to the person, and
to give equal right to the poor and rich. There should be clear and convincing evidence to prove
the charge; mere suspicion of partiality is not enough.
CANON 3
Section 5 - IMPARTIALITY

 5.02 -(b) The judge previously served as a lawyer or was a

material witness in the matter in controversy;
CASE DIGEST ( Previous Relationship)
Andres vs. Majaducon, A.M No. RTJ-03-1762, December 7, 2008

 FACTS:
The complaint stemmed from the Special order of Demolition issued by Judge Majaducon
said order directed the Sheriff of General Santos, Nasil Palati to demolish the improvements
erected by the heirs of John Sycip and Yard Urban Homeowners Association. The land in
dispute belonged to spouses Melencio Yu and Talinanap Matalauga. Complainants who
claimed to have an interest over the lot filed a Special Appearance with urgent Ex-Parte
Manifestation which seeks to inform the court of the pending protest lodged in the DENR
between them and the heirs of spouses Melencio Yu and Talinanap.
Judge Majaduncon as Executive Judge of RTC B23 of General Santos denied the Urgent
Motion for special raffle and dismissed the case outright and issued on the same duty an
order declaring the complaints in direct contempt . Ordering them to pay a fine of P2,000 and
imprisonment for 10 days.
This prompted the complainants to file an administrative complaint averring that respondents
actions constituted bad faith, malicious, serious, partiality, grave misconduct and gross
ignorance of the law.
CASE DIGEST ( Previous Relationship)
Andres vs. Majaducon, A.M No. RTJ-03-1762, December 7, 2008

 ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Majaducon is guity of abuse of authority

 HELD:
The court held that Judge Majaducon is guilty of abuse authority. Respondent Judge cannot
excuse himself from his duty as Executive Judge by dispensing with the raffle of the case and
dismissing it outright. As Executive Judge, he ought to know that raffling of cases is his
personal duty and responsibility.
He is expected to keep abreast and he conversant with the Supreme Court rules and circulars
that effect the conduct of cases before him and strictly comply therewith at all times. Failure
to abide by these rules compromise the wisdom behind them and diminishes respect for the
rule of law.
Section 6 of Canon 6 of New Code of Judicial Conduct states that: “Judges shall maintain
order and decorum in all proceedings before the court and be patient, dignified and courteous
in relation to litigants, witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom the Judge deals in an official
capacity”.
Respondent Judge’s act of unceremoniously citing complainants in direct contempt is a clear
evidence of his unjustified use of authority vested upon him by law.
CANON 3
Section 5 - IMPARTIALITY

 5.03 - (c) The judge, or a member of his or her family, has an economic
interest in the outcome of the matter in controversy;
CASE DIGEST ( Economic Interest)
Pangandag vs. Abinal A.M No. MTJ- 16-1877, June 13, 2016

 FACTS:
Complainant Moamar Pangandag was criminally charged with grave threats for allegedly
threatening to commit the crime of murder against a certain Monaoray "Nahara" Abdullah and
her companions. The Information was filed before the sala of Presiding Judge Abinal of the
Mulondo, Maguing, Lumba-Bayabao, and Taraka MCTC in Lanao del Sur. Upon finding the
existence of probable cause, he issued a warrant of arrest against Pangandag and two
others.
However, 15 days later, Judge Abinal voluntarily inhibited himself from hearing the case
because of his relationship to Abdullah, who was his niece. The case was eventually
transferred to the presiding judge of the Marawi City MTCC. The criminal complaint was later
on dismissed in light of the prosecution's Motion to Withdraw Information based on the
Affidavit of Desistance executed by the private complainant.
Pangandag is now before this Court to complain against the actions of Judge Abinal. Further,
it is argued that Judge Abinal should have disqualified himself from hearing the case in light
of his relationship to the private complainant, who was his third-degree relative by
consanguinity. Judge Abinal admits that private complainant was indeed his niece, he
stresses that this relationship was the reason why he voluntarily inhibited from the case
immediately after issuing the warrant. He argues that he did not have to inhibit himself from
deciding whether to issue a warrant of arrest, as it was his ministerial duty to do so.
CASE DIGEST ( Economic Interest)
Pangandag vs. Abinal A.M No. MTJ- 16-1877, June 13, 2016

 ISSUE: Whether Judge Abinal is administratively liable for taking cognizance of the criminal
complaint for grave threats against Pangandag
 HELD:
The court held that Judge Abinal was not administratively liable when he took cognizance of
the criminal complaint. He merely relied on the words of the Information, which do not appear
to accuse Pangandag of committing grave threats accompanied by a demand for money or
an imposition of any other condition.
However, that Judge Abinal indeed violated the New Code of Judicial Conduct in relation to
the Rules of Court by acting on the criminal complaint and issuing a warrant of arrest despite
his relationship to the private complainant. Rule 137 of the Rules of Court clearly disqualifies
judges from hearing cases if they are related to one of the parties within the sixth degree of
consanguinity or affinity.
As expressed in Section 5(c), Canon 3 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct, Judges should
not take part in proceedings in which their impartiality might reasonably be questioned,
including those in which a party litigant is related to them by consanguinity or affinity. We
stress that this disqualification rule was put into place to preserve the people's faith and
confidence in the courts of justice.Thus, Judges should not preside over a case in which they
are not wholly free, disinterested, impartial, and independent.
CANON 3 - IMPARTIALITY
SECTION 5

 5.04 -(d) The judge served as executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or

lawyer in the case or matter in controversy, or a former associate of the
judge served as counsel during their association, or the judge or lawyer
was a material witness therein;

 5.05 - (e) The judge’s ruling in a lower court is the subject of review

 5.06 - (f) The judge is related by consanguinity or affinity to a party litigant

within the sixth civil degree or to counsel within the fourth civil degree;
CASE DIGEST ( Consanguinity or Affinity relationship)
Villaluz vs. Mijares, A.M No. RTJ-98-1402, April 3, 1998

 FACTS:
Through a verified letter-complaint dated 12 September 1995, retired Justice of the
Court of Appeals Onofre A. Villaluz charged Judge Priscilla C. Mijares, incumbent
Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 108, with dishonesty, corrupt
practices, grave misconduct and immorality.
Judge Mijares took cognizance of and decided Special Proceedings No. 3946, a petition
for correction of entry in the birth record of her grandson, Joshua Anthony M. Gurango,
the child of her daughter Ma Pilita M. Gurango, notwithstanding such close relationship
and this not with standing the fact that even if said petition had regularly been raffled
off , a sense of propriety, if not the letter and spirit of the Code of Judicial Ethics, should
have made her refuse the assignment and procure the transfer of the case to any of the
five other branches of the Court equally qualified to take over and decide the case and
to compound and aggravate the corrupt practice of taking on and deciding the case of a
very close relative, she also dispensed with the required publication of the petition
which sought to correct the entry of the subject's citizenship from the stated "Filipino" to
"American."
CASE DIGEST ( Consanguinity or Affinity relationship)
Villaluz vs. Mijares, A.M No. RTJ-98-1402, April 3, 1998

 ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent's conduct is inexcusable.

 HELD:
The court held that respondent is clearly disqualified from trying the case under the
aforequoted section and also under Rule 3.12 (d) Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Being related within the sixth degree of consanguinity to one of the parties (petitioner) in
Special Proceedings No. 9346, it was mandatory for respondent to have inhibited herself from
hearing the case. While respondent or her daughter may not have pecuniary interest in the
case as heir, creditor or otherwise, which is her contention for her exculpation, what is
violated in Section 1 of Rule 137 was her taking cognizance of the case despite her
relationship to a party within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity.
Apart from the rules already cited, respondent violated Rule 2.03, Canon 2 of Code of Judicial
Conduct which states that: "A Judge shall not allow family, social or other relationships to
influence judicial conduct or judgment. The prestige of judicial office shall not be used or tent
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”.
CANON 3 - IMPARTIALITY
Section 5

5.07 -(g) The judge knows that his or her spouse or child has a financial
interest, as heir, legatee, creditor, fiduciary, or otherwise, in the subject matter
in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could
be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceedings
CASE DIGEST ( Financial Interest)
Castro vs. Judge Mangrobang, A.M No. MTJ-16-2455, April 11, 2016

 FACTS:
Based on the foregoing events, Castro filed a Complaint-Affidavit against Judge Mangrobang
before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) on June 15, 2010. Castro takes Judge
Mangrobang to task for his failure to promptly act on her two pending Motions in Civil Case
No. 2187-00, stressing that a judge must act on all motions and interlocutory matters pending
before their courts within the 90-day period provided in the Constitution, unless the law
requires a lesser period. Failure by the judge to promptly dispose the court's business within
the periods prescribed by law and the rules constitutes gross inefficiency and warrants
administrative sanction.

In addition, Castro contends that Judge Mangrobang exhibited bias and partiality in granting
spouses Guevarra's Motion to Defer Action by reason of their pending Petition for Certiorari
before the Court of Appeals, but later denying Castro's Motion to Suspend Proceedings also
on the basis of her pending Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals. According to
Castro, Judge Mangrobang's undue preference to spouses Guevarra constitutes neglect of
his duty to administer justice impartially under Rule 1.02 of The Code of Judicial Conduct,
and of his obligation to conduct himself free of any whiff of impropriety.
CASE DIGEST ( Financial Interest)
Castro vs. Judge Mangrobang, A.M No. MTJ-16-2455, April 11, 2016

 ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Mangrobang have voluntarily inhibited himself from Civil Case No. 2187-00?

 HELD:
The Court answers in the negative. The following lengthy disquisition of the Court is pertinent in this case.
Under the first paragraph of Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court, a judge or judicial officer shall be
mandatory disqualified to sit in any case in which: he, or his wife or child, is pecuniarily interested as heir,
legatee, creditor or otherwise; or he is related to either party within the sixth degree of consanguinity or
affinity, or to counsel within the fourth degree, computed according to the rules of civil law; or he has been
executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or counsel; or he has presided in any inferior court when his
ruling or decision is the subject of review, without the written consent of all parties in interest, signed by
them and entered upon the record.
Paragraph two of the same provision meanwhile provides for the rule on voluntary inhibition and states: a
judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion, disqualify himself from sitting in a case, for just or valid
reasons other than those mentioned above." That discretion is a matter of conscience and is addressed
primarily to the judge's sense of fairness and justice.
CANON 3 - IMPARTIALITY
Section 6

 SECTION. 6. A judge disqualified as stated above may, instead of

withdrawing from the proceeding, disclose on the records the basis of
disqualification. If, based on such disclosure, the parties and lawyers,
independently of the judge’s participation, all agree in writing that the
reason for the inhibition is immaterial or unsubstantial, the judge may then
participate in the proceeding. The agreement, signed by all parties and
lawyers, shall be incorporated in the record of the proceedings.
THANK YOU and HAVE A GREAT
EVENING

Reporter: Crestina O. Ocenar