BASIC LEGAL ETHICS 1

WED AND FRI / 7:00 - 8:30 PM

ATTY. AYO

GOD IS GOOD ALL THE TIME.. ALL THE TIME GOD IS GOOD

APRIL 20, 2018 -- FRIDAY

New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary - June 1, 2004

Canon 1 - Independence - Secs. 1-8

Judicial independence is a pre-requisite 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.

SECTION 1. 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.
SEC. 2. In performing judicial duties, judges shall be independent from judicial colleagues in respect of
decisions which the judge is obliged to make independently.

SEC. 3. Judges shall refrain from influencing in any manner the outcome of litigation or dispute pending before
another court or administrative agency.

SEC. 4. 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.

SEC. 5. 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. 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.

SEC. 7. 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.

SEC. 8. 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 - Secs. 1-3

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

SECTION 1. 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.

SEC. 2. 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.

SEC. 3. Judges should take or initiate appropriate disciplinary measures against lawyers or court personnel for
unprofessional conduct of which the judge may have become aware.
BASIC LEGAL ETHICS 2
WED AND FRI / 7:00 - 8:30 PM
ATTY. AYO

Canon 3 - Impartiality - Secs. 1-6

SECTION 1. Judges shall perform their judicial duties without favor, bias or prejudice.

SEC. 2. Judges shall ensure that his or her conduct, both in and out of court, maintains and enhances the
confidence of the public, the legal profession and litigants in the impartiality of the judge and of the judiciary.

SEC. 3. Judges shall, so far as is reasonable, so conduct themselves as to minimize the occasions on which it
will be necessary for them to be disqualified from hearing or deciding cases.

SEC. 4. Judges shall not knowingly, while a proceeding is before or could come before them, make any
comment that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome of such proceeding or impair the manifest
fairness of the process. Nor shall judges make any comment in public or otherwise that might affect the fair
trial of any person or issue.

SEC. 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 (a) The judge has
actual bias or prejudice concerning a party or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the
proceedings; (b) The judge previously served as a lawyer or was a material witness in the matter in
controversy; (c) The judge, or a member of his or her family, has an economic interest in the outcome of the
matter in controversy; (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; (e) The judge’s ruling in a lower court is the subject of review;
(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; or (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;

SEC. 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.

Canon 4 - Propriety - Secs. 1-15

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.

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.
BASIC LEGAL ETHICS 3
WED AND FRI / 7:00 - 8:30 PM
ATTY. AYO

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 and 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 for
any other purpose related to their judicial duties.

SEC. 10. Subject to the proper performance of judicial duties, judges may (a) Write, lecture, teach and
participate in 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 law, the legal system,
the administration of justice or related matters; (c) 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.
Canon 5 - Equality - Secs. 1-5

Ensuring equality of treatment to all before the courts is essential to the due performance of the judicial office.
BASIC LEGAL ETHICS 4
WED AND FRI / 7:00 - 8:30 PM
ATTY. AYO

SECTION 1. Judges shall be aware of, and understand, diversity in society and differences arising from
various sources, including but not limited to race, color, sex, religion, national origin, caste, disability, age,
marital status, sexual orientation, social and economic status and other like causes.

SEC. 2. Judges shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct, manifest bias or prejudice
towards any person or group on irrelevant grounds.

SEC. 3. Judges shall carry out judicial duties with appropriate consideration for all persons, such as the
parties, witnesses, lawyers, court staff and judicial colleagues, without differentiation on any irrelevant ground,
immaterial to the proper performance of such duties.

SEC. 4. Judges shall not knowingly permit court staff or others subject to his or her influence, direction or
control to differentiate between persons concerned, in a matter before the judge, on any irrelevant ground.

SEC. 5. Judges shall require lawyers in proceedings before the court to refrain from manifesting, by words or
conduct, bias or prejudice based on irrelevant grounds, except such as are legally relevant to an issue in
proceedings and may be the subject of legitimate advocacy.

Canon 6 - Competence and Diligence - Secs. 1- 7

Competence and diligence are prerequisites to the due performance of judicial office.

SECTION 1. The judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all other activities.

SEC. 2. Judges shall devote their professional activity to judicial duties, which include not only the
performance of judicial functions and responsibilities in court and the making of decisions, but also other tasks
relevant to the judicial office or the court’s operations.

SEC. 3. Judges shall take reasonable steps to maintain and enhance their knowledge, skills and personal
qualities necessary for the proper performance of judicial duties, taking advantage for this purpose of the
training and other facilities which should be made available, under judicial control, to judges.

SEC. 4. Judges shall keep themselves informed about relevant developments of international law, including
international conventions and other instruments establishing human rights norms.

SEC. 5. Judges shall perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly
and with reasonable promptness.

SEC. 6. 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. Judges shall require similar conduct of legal representatives, court staff and others subject to their
influence, direction or control.

SEC. 7. Judges shall not engage in conduct incompatible with the diligent discharge of judicial duties.

1. Dr. Janos B. Vizcayno v. Judge Jasper Jesse G. Dacanay, A.M. No. MTJ 10-1772, 12/5/12 (Jerald)
BASIC LEGAL ETHICS 5
WED AND FRI / 7:00 - 8:30 PM
ATTY. AYO

FACTS: In a ​VERIFIED ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT ​dated September 25, 2009 (with enclosures), Dr.
Janos B. Vizcayno (complainant) charges Judge Jasper Jesse G. Dacanay (respondent judge) of the
Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), Liloan-Compostela, Cebu, with Gross Ignorance of the Law, Abuse of
Authority, Manifest Partiality and Delay.

Complainant is the defendant in a civil complaint for forcible entry and damages, docketed as Civil Case No.
650-R entitled, "​Deodito R. Pulido, et al. v. Janos B. Vizcayno​," filed before the MCTC, Liloan-Compostela,
Cebu. On March 31, 2009, respondent judge (together with the plaintiff who allegedly fraternized with and
entertained him), without notice to complainant, conducted an ​ex-parte ​ocular inspection on the property
subject of the civil action. Complainant only learned of the ocular inspection through neighbors Norma Tan,
Herminia Domain, and Fernan Baguio. Feeling aggrieved, complainant filed a motion for inhibition of
respondent judge to hear the civil action. The motion was set for hearing on April 24, 2009. However,
respondent judge opted to proceed with the hearing of the case on May 29, 2009. In a heated argument,
complainant and his counsel moved that the motion for inhibition be first resolved, but respondent judge
ignored the same.

Complainant argues that respondent judge committed a gross violation of the due process clause protected
under the Constitution when the latter conducted an ​ex-parte ​ocular inspection without notice to him. Also,
respondent judge failed to live up to that norm of conduct that "judges should not only be impartial but should
also appear impartial," when he conducted the ocular inspection together with the plaintiffs. Such act,
complainant claims, is highly improper and grossly inappropriate, and is a violation of Canon 2 of the New
Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary (New Code of Judicial Conduct) which provides that "a
judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities."

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended that Judge Dacanay be found guilty of committing
conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and be imposed a fine of ₱25,000 with a stern warning
that a repetition of the same offense shall be dealt with more severely.

ISSUE/s:
(1) Whether Judge Dacanay should be held administratively liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of
the service for conducting an ocular inspection without informing the partie. -YES (Focus here)

(2) Whether Judge Dacanay should be held administratively liable for the delay in the resolution of the Motion
for Inhibition. -NO

HELD:

Conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service

Section 1, Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct ​states that "judges shall avoid impropriety and the
appearance of impropriety in all of their activities."

Judge Dacanay’s actuations, although not necessarily attended with bad faith, fraud, dishonesty or corruption,
were precipitate and imprudent. The pre-trial stage has not begun. There was failure to inform all parties about
the ocular inspection.

We have previously ruled that an ocular inspection without notice to nor presence of the parties is
highly improper. ​Good and noble intentions notwithstanding, Judge Dacanay’s actuations gave an
appearance of impropriety. His behavior diminished public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the
judiciary. We have repeatedly stressed that all those involved in the dispensation of justice, from the presiding
judge to the lowliest clerk, must always be beyond reproach. Their conduct must, at all times, be circumscribed
with the heavy burden of responsibility free from any suspicion that may taint the judiciary. As the
administration of justice is a sacred task, this Court condemns and cannot countenance any act on the part of
BASIC LEGAL ETHICS 6
WED AND FRI / 7:00 - 8:30 PM
ATTY. AYO

court personnel that would violate the norm of public accountability and diminish or even just tend to diminish
the faith of the people in the judiciary.

Delay in the resolution of the motion for inhibition

x x x [R]espondent judge in his Order dated September 30, 2009, expunged from the records the said motion
because the counsel of complainant failed to indicate the date of issue and number of his MCLE Compliance
as required by Bar Matter No. 1922.1âwphi1 Said Order may therefore be considered as a denial of the Motion
for Inhibition, which was issued within the 90-day period to resolve a motion.

The failure of respondent judge to resolve the Motion for Reconsideration of the Order dated September 30,
2009, which was filed on October 21, 2009, could not be attributable to him because on November 9, 2009, he
received a directive from the Office of the Court Administrator to comment on the instant complaint. Since an
order was issued on September 30, 2009 to expunge the Motion for Inhibition from the record of the case, and
that on March 30, 2010, he eventually inhibited from the case, there was no unreasonable delay on the part of
the respondent judge.

Judge Dacanay issued his Orders well within the three-month period imposed by Section 15, Article VIII of the
Constitution.

Dispositive Portion:

Judge Dacanay’s ocular inspection without notice to the parties constitutes conduct prejudicial to the best
interest of the service, in violation of Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary.

WHEREFORE, ​respondent Judge Jasper Jesse G. Dacanay is found guilty of committing conduct prejudicial
to the best interest of the service in violation of Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine
Judiciary and is imposed a fine of P30,000. Judge Dacanay is sternly warned that a repetition of the same or
simi Jar offense shall be dealt with more severely.

2. Emilie Sison-Barias v. Judge Marino Rubia, Eileen A. Pecaña, A.M. RTJ 14-2388, 6/10/14 (Jued)

FACTS: ​Complainant Emilie Sison-Barias is involved in three cases pending before the sala of respondent
Judge Marino Rubia: 1.) Intestate proceeding; 2.) guardianship proceeding; and 3.) civil action for annulment
of contracts and reconveyance of properties.

Complainant alleged that there was delay in the publication of the notice in the petition for issuance of letters of
administration filed. She was then informed by her brother, Enrique "Ike" Sison, that respondent Eileen
Pecaña, the daughter of his good friend, was a data encoder in the Office of the Clerk of Court of the RTC of
Biñan, Laguna.

Complainant and her brother inquired Respondent Eileen Pecaña of the delay in the publication of the notice in
the petition for issuance of letters of administration. She then asked respondent Pecaña to check the status of
the publication of the notice. Respondent Pecaña asked complainant to meet her again at her house in Biñan,
Laguna. Complainant went there with Enrique. Respondent Pecaña then informed complainant that she could
no longer assist her since respondent Judge Rubia had already given administration of the subject properties
to a certain Evelyn Tanael. To which Complainant Emilie shrugged since her primary concern was for her case
on the administration of the properties of her late husband (Intestate Proceeding).

Later on, respondent Pecaña sent her a text message asking complainant to call her. In their conversation,
Pecaña informed her that respondent Judge Rubia wanted to talk to her. Complainant agreed to meet with
respondent Judge Rubia over dinner, on the condition that respondent Pecaña would be present as well. Shet
then attended the dinner without consulting with her counsel.
BASIC LEGAL ETHICS 7
WED AND FRI / 7:00 - 8:30 PM
ATTY. AYO

During the dinner meeting, respondents allegedly asked complainant inappropriate questions. Respondent
Judge Rubia allegedly asked whether she was still connected with Philippine Airlines, which she still was at
that time. Complainant was then informed that respondent Judge Rubia knew of this fact through Atty. Noe
Zarate, counsel of Romelias Almeda-Barias. This disclosure surprised complainant,as she was under the
impression that opposing counsel and respondent JudgeRubia had no business discussing matters that were
not relevant to their pending cases. Moreover, Respondent Judge Rubia also allegedly asked her questions
about her supposed involvement with another man and other accusations made by Romelias Almeda-Barias.
She was asked about the hospital where she brought her husband at the time of his cardiac arrest.

These details, according to complainant, were never discussed in the pleadings or in the course of the trial.
Thus, she inferred that respondent Judge Rubia had been talking to the opposing counsel regarding these
matters outside of the court proceedings. The impression of complainant was that respondent Judge Rubia
was actively taking a position in favor of Atty. Zarate, counsel to the opposition. Complainant confirms her
suspicion but Respondent Judge Rubia only said that she should talk directly to Atty. Zarate from now on.

In the meantime, complainant alleged that respondent Judge Rubia acted in a manner that showed manifest
partiality in favor of the opposing parties, namely, Romelias Almeda-Barias and Evelyn Tanael, as represented
by their counsel, Atty. Noe Zarate:

- Respondent Judge Rubia did not even consider the comment/opposition to the motion for consolidation
filed by her counsel
- Respondent Judge Rubia insisted on discussing the totality of the different issues involved in the three
distinct cases under one court proceeding.
- Respondent Judge Rubia refused to issue Orders that would have allowed her to comply with her
duties as the special administrator of her late husband’s estate. This included the order to conduct an
inventory of the properties, rights, and credits of the deceased, subject to the authority of the
administrator.
- Respondent Judge Rubia failed to require a timely filing of the pre-trial brief on the part of Evelyn
Tanael and Romelias Almeda-Barias, and despite their noncompliance on four (4) separate pre-trials
that were postponed, Tanael and Almeda-Barias were not declared in default.

Judge Rubia’s contention:

Respondent Judge Rubia claimed that the alleged meeting between him and his co-respondent Pecaña
together with complainant was a ​mere chance encounter. He denied any pre-arranged dinner meeting,
stating that after the brief encounter with complainant, he had to rush home to attend to his ailing wife. He
stated that he was only introduced to complainant because she was an employee of Philippine Airlines where
he was a former executive. Respondent Judge Rubia argued that if the alleged meeting with complainant did
take place, it should have been mentioned in the first motion for inhibition. Further, he emphasized that it took
complainant eight ​(8) months since the alleged dinner meeting to file a motion for inhibition and an
administrative case

Respondent Judge Rubia surmised that complainant and her counsel, hoping for a favorable outcome of the
cases filed, initiated contact with respondent Pecaña. ​The filing of the administrative case against him was
only to compel him to inhibit from the cases to seek a friendlier forum.

Moreover, respondent Judge Rubia denied knowledge of any text messages exchanged between complainant
and respondent Pecaña as well as any active advocacy in favor of opposing counsel, Atty. Zarate.

As to the allegations of partiality concerning the orders he issued for the cases filed, respondent Judge Rubia
argued that the best forum to ventilate complainant’s allegations was not through an administrative proceeding
but through judicial recourse.
BASIC LEGAL ETHICS 8
WED AND FRI / 7:00 - 8:30 PM
ATTY. AYO

Investigation of CA Justice Gaerlan:

The case then were insinuated with a Court of Appeals Investigator under the name of Justice Garlean. In his
report, Justice Gaerlan recommended that no penalty be imposed against respondents. He was "convinced
that the meeting at Burgos Circle was just a chance encounter" and found that complainant failed to prove her
claim with substantial evidence that would justify the imposition of a penalty on respondents.

Justice Gaerlan relied on the testimony of Rodel Cortez as against the uncorroborated testimony of
complainant.

Justice Gaerlan emphasized the fact that it had taken complainant eight (8) months before she filed the
administrative complaint. He stated that the deliberate concealment of the meeting was inconsistent with
her resolve to prove respondent Judge Rubia’s alleged partiality toward the counsel of the opposing
party

ISSUE: WON Judge Rubia and Pecaña should be held administrably liable.

HELD: The court set aside the report of Justice Gaerlan.

On corroboration made by Rodel Cortez on attendance of Judge Rubia on Rotary Club Assembly:

While respondents were able to present a witness to corroborate their version of the incident on all material
points, complainant miserably failed on this regard. The Investigating Justice who had the untrammeled
opportunity to observe the deportment and demeanor of the respondent’s witness, Rodel Cortez (Cortez)
during the hearing finds his forthright narration of facts credible and rang with truth. The clear, candid and
unmistakable declaration of Cortez that the incident that transpired along the sidewalk of Burgos Circle was
just a chance encounter, absent any ulterior motive for him to perjure, swayed this Investigating Justice to
believe that the dinner meeting between Judge Rubia and Barias did not [take] place. A testimony is credible if
it bears the earmarks of truth and sincerity and has been delivered in a spontaneous, natural, and
straightforward manner.

The court branded Cortez as a “disinterested witness” wherein the testimony is afforded evidentiary weight by
his lack of interest in the outcome of the case. This lack of stake makes the disinterested witness’ testimony
more believable.

The finding that respondent Judge Rubia is administratively liable could taint the reputation of the organization
that the witness has been serving for more than 20 years. It would be a definite blow to the reputation of the
Rotary Club of Makati, Southwest Chapter, if its former President were to be found guilty of the offenses that
complainant imputed upon respondent Judge Rubia. The possibility of Rodel testifying in favor of respondent
Judge Rubia as a result of his loyalty to the latter and the Rotary Club puts into question the characterization
that he is disinterested. The substance of Rodel’s narration of events should also be scrutinized.

On delay of filing of Administrative Complaint against respondents:

Delay in filing of administrative complaint is not a defense

The investigation report placed particular emphasis on the eight-month period between the alleged dinner
meeting and the filing of the administrative complaint. The eight-month delay in the filing of the administrative
complaint is of no consequence.

Delay in filing an administrative complaint should not be construed as basis to question its veracity or
credibility. There are considerations that a litigant must think about before filing an administrative case against
BASIC LEGAL ETHICS 9
WED AND FRI / 7:00 - 8:30 PM
ATTY. AYO

judges and court personnel. This is more so for lawyers where the possibility of appearing before the judge
where an administrative complaint has been filed is high.

Here, respondent Judge Rubia presided over three cases that involved complainant and her late husband’s
estate. He wielded an unmistakable amount of control over the proceedings.

Filing an administrative case against respondents is a time-consuming ordeal, and it would require additional
time and resources that litigants would rather not expend in the interest of preserving their rights in the suit.
Complainant might have decided to tread with caution so as not to incur the ire of respondent Judge Rubia for
fear of the reprisal that could take place after the filing of an administrative complaint.

Judges and court personnel wield extraordinary control over court proceedings of cases filed. Thus, litigants
are always cautious in filing administrative cases against judges and court personnel.

In any case, administrative offenses, including those committed by members of the bench and bar, are not
subject to a fixed period within which they must be reported.

FOCUS on Judge Rubia:

Respondent Judge Rubia committed gross violations of the New Code of Judicial Conduct

By meeting a litigant and advising her to talk to opposing counsel, respondent Judge Rubia violated
several canons of the New Code of Judicial Conduct.

Respondent Judge Rubia ​failed to act in a manner that upholds the dignity mandated by his office​. He
was already made aware of the impropriety of respondent Pecaña’s actions by virtue of her admissions in her
comment. At the time of the referral of the complaint to the Office of the Court Administrator, respondent Judge
Rubia was already the Executive Judge of Branch 24 of the Regional Trial Court of Biñan, Laguna. As a judge,
he had the authority to ensure that all court employees, whether or not they were under his direct supervision,
act in accordance with the esteem of their office.

Respondent Pecaña even alleged that respondent Judge Rubia made several warnings to all court employees
not to intercede in any case pending before any court under his jurisdiction as Executive Judge. However,
nothing in the record shows that respondent Judge Rubia took action after being informed of respondent
Pecaña’s interactions with a litigant, such as ascertaining her actions, conducting an inquiry to admonish or
discipline her, or at least reporting her actions to the Office of the Court Administrator.

For this failure alone, respondent Judge Rubia should be held administratively liable. Furthermore, the
evidence on record supports the allegations that a meeting with complainant, a litigant with several cases
pending before his sala, took place. Respondent Judge Rubia’s mere presence in the dinner meeting provides
a ground for administrative liability.

The totality of the actions of respondent Judge Rubia is a clear manifestation of a lack of integrity and
impartiality essential to a judge.

Canons violated by Judge Rubia:

Canon 1 INDEPENDECE; Canon 2 INTEGRITY

In the motion for intervention filed by Atty. Zarate before Justice Gaerlan, Atty. Zarate stated that even if
respondent Judge Rubia was present at the dinner meeting, it was merely an attempt to reconcile the parties
and reach an extrajudicial solution.
BASIC LEGAL ETHICS 10
WED AND FRI / 7:00 - 8:30 PM
ATTY. AYO

This is telling of a culture of tolerance that has led to the decay of the exacting nature of judicial propriety.
Instead of being outraged by respondent Judge Rubia’s meeting an opposing party, Atty. Zarate defended
respondent Judge Rubia’s actions.

Had it been true that a settlement was being brokered by respondent Judge Rubia, it should have been done
in open court with the record reflecting such an initiative.

As to complainant’s questioning of respondent Judge Rubia’s actions in the issuance of the orders in her
pending cases and the exercise of his judgment, this court agrees that complainant should resort to the
appropriate judicial remedies. This, however, does not negate the administrative liability of respondent Judge
Rubia

CANON 3. IMPARTIALITY;

Respondent Judge Rubia’s act of trying to convince complainant to agree to his proposal is an act of
impropriety. It is improper and highly unethical for a judge to suggest to a litigant what to do to resolve his case
for such would generate the suspicion that the judge is in collusion with one party. A litigant in a case is
entitled to no less than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge. Judges are not only required to be impartial,
but also to appear to be so, for appearance is an essential manifestation of reality.

CANON 4. PROPRIETY

Because of the meeting, and the subsequent orders issued after the meeting, respondent Judge Rubia
violated the notions of propriety required of his office. Respondents have relentlessly stood by their position
that the meeting was a chance encounter, and, thus, no impropriety could be attributed to the meeting itself.

Respondent Judge Rubia’s actions belittled the integrity required of judges in all their dealings inside and
outside the courts. For these actions, respondent Judge Rubia now lost the requisite integrity, impartiality, and
propriety fundamental to his office. He cannot be allowed to remain a member of the judiciary.

3. Danilo David S. Mariano v. Judge Jose P. Nacional, A.M. MTJ-07-1688, 2/10/09 ( Mark)

FACTS: ​Danilo Mariano filed an administrative complaint against Respondent Judge Jose Nacional for gross
inefficacy, gross ignorance of law, dereliction of duty (failure to do once job), and violation of Judicial Conduct.
The complaint stemmed from an action for ejectment. In the ejectment case, Judge Jose Nacional issued a
pre-trial order which requires the parties to file their respective position papers and affidavits of witnesses, in
which the parties complied with. After sometime, respondent issued an order requiring the parties to submit
their respective memoranda, in which the parties also complied. The case was eventually decided by
respondent judge. The complainant contended that the ​order of respondent judge violated the prohibition
on memoranda by the Revised Rules of Court on summary procedure​. Petitioner also contended that
respondent judge violated the rules when he ​decided the case 136 days from the date required by law.
Respondent Judge, in his comment, admitted that he exceeded the maximum period to decide on the case
and offered the following excuses: (1) Quality of decision had priority over compliance with the reglementary
period; (2) his caseload was heavy, & (3) the documents of the case is voluminous. He also justified that the
case was not an ordinary one. Respondent judge also added that the case was filed because his judgement
was against the complainant.

ISSUE: WON respondent judge violated the code of Judicial Conduct.

HELD: YES. ​The office of the Court Administrator found that r​espondent violated basic procedure and the
code of Judicial Conduct​. OCA also found that in a case entitled “Prado v. Judge Nacional”, Respondent
Judge had been previously admonished for gross ignorance of the law, dereliction of duty, partiality and,
oppression and incompetence.
BASIC LEGAL ETHICS 11
WED AND FRI / 7:00 - 8:30 PM
ATTY. AYO

The findings of the OCA are well-taken but we do not agree with the recommended penalty.
Without doubt, Civil Case No. 12334 was a case of unlawful detainer covered by the RRSP. ​Section 5 of the
RRSP explicitly provides that only complaints, compulsory counterclaims and cross-claims pleaded in the
answer, as well as the answers to these pleadings, are allowed. The RRSP also expressly prohibits the filing
of a memorandum. The same prohibition is contained in Section 13, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court (ROC). The
urgency of restoring social order is the paramount consideration in settling unlawful detainer and
forcible entry cases. ​To aid the judiciary in proceeding with these cases, the RRSP was promulgated with the
following rationale: ​The adoption of the Rule on Summary Procedure is part of the commitment of the judiciary
to enforce the constitutional right of litigants to a speedy disposition of their cases. It was promulgated to
achieve an expeditious and inexpensive determination of cases. Any member of the judiciary who causes the
delay sought to be prevented by the Rule is sanctionable.

The necessity of promptly resolving unlawful detainer and forcible entry cases is made more imperative by the
express legal provisions on periods of rendition of judgments. Specifically, Section 11, Rule 70 of the ROC
provides that the court shall render judgment within 30 days after receipt of the
affidavits and position papers, or expiration of the period for filing the same. The RRSP provides for the same
period.

Corollarily, Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct ​admonishes all judges to dispose of the courts
business promptly and decide cases ​within the period specified in Section 15 (1) and (2), Article VIII of the
Constitution. ​This is supplemented by Section 5, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the
Philippine Judiciary ​requiring judges to perform all judicial duties efficiently, fairly and with reasonable
promptness. We cannot accept the justifications advanced by respondent. Doing so will undermine the wisdom
behind procedural rules and diminish respect for the law. We reiterate that a judge (by himself) cannot choose
to prolong the period for deciding cases beyond that authorized by law. ​If a judge needs more time to decide a
case, he should formally request this Court for an extension of the deadline.

The rules of procedure are clear and unambiguous, leaving no room for interpretation. Neither good faith nor
lack of malice will exonerate respondent because, as previously noted, the rules violated were basic
procedural rules. All that was needed for respondent to do was to apply them. ​Unfortunately, he chose not to. It
is settled that one who accepts the exalted position of a judge owes the public and the court the ability to be
proficient in the law and the duty to maintain professional competence at all times. ​Competence and diligence
are prerequisites to the due performance of judicial office.

Violation of the basic tenets of judicial conduct embodied in the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the
Philippine Judiciary and the Code of Judicial Conduct constitutes a breach of Canons 1 and 12 ​as well as
Rules 1.03 ​and 12.04of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Respondent also transgressed Rule
10.03​ ​of the CPR when he violated the provisions of the RRSP and the ROC.

WHEREFORE​, respondent Judge Jose P. Nacional is hereby found ​GUILTY ​of gross ignorance of the law and
procedure for which he is ​FINED ​P40,000. He is also found ​GUILTY ​of violation of Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the
Code of Judicial Conduct and Section 5, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine
Judiciary for which he is ​FINED ​P20,000. Respondent is furthermore found ​GUILTY ​of violation of Canons 1
and 12 as well as Rules 1.03, 10.03 and 12.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for which he is
FINED ​P10,000.

He is hereby ordered to remit payment of the fines within ten (10) days from receipt of this resolution.

Respondent is ​STERNLY WARNED ​that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall warrant an even
more severe penalty.
BASIC LEGAL ETHICS 12
WED AND FRI / 7:00 - 8:30 PM
ATTY. AYO

4. Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2, Cagayan de Oro
City, A.M. No. 02-8-207-MTCC, 7/27/09 (Mustang)

Facts: (Consolidated Cases)

Audit Team of the Court Management Office conducted judicial audit and physical inventory of cases.
The report disclosed that Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 2 of Cagayan de Oro City:
1. had a total case load of 1,654 cases, of which 155 cases have been submitted for decision.
2. Of the 155 cases, 140 cases were already beyond the prescribed 90-day period to decide ordinary cases
or the 30-day period to decide cases covered by summary procedure.
3. There were also 10 cases with pending incidents for resolution which had not been acted upon
4. Six (6) civil cases had also never been acted upon despite the assignment of the said cases to the trial
court
5. In 9 criminal cases, the trial court failed to issue writs of execution relative to its orders of confiscation of
the bail bonds of accused who jumped bail.
6. The trial court also failed to archive (1) 125 criminal cases where the accused were not arrested despite
the lapse of more than 6 months since the issuance of the warrants of arrest,
7. 35 civil cases where the defendants were not served summons despite the lapse of more than 6 months
from the issuance of summons.

1. Judge Evelyn Gamotin-Nery – OCA found he ​failed to decide 10 cases submitted for decision with
an admonition to be more diligent in the performance of her judicial duties

2. Gregorio D. Pantanosas, Jr - Oca found , ​he is entitled to for failure to decide 36 cases submitted
for decision

3. Mr. Alfredo B. Magno, Jr. is -​failure to turnover the confiscated firearms in Criminal Case No. 98-1770
and the fireworks in Criminal Case No. 99-02-484. The OCA further recommended that the matter as to Ms.
Helenita T. Gaccion be considered closed and terminated. The OCA noted, however, that the alleged illness of
Mr. Magno was unsupported by any medical certificate.

4. Eleuteria Badoles-Algodon - Oca found she​ complied fully with the directives of the Resolution dated
September 11, 2002 sinceshe has yet to inform the Court of the actions taken on the directives and no copies
of the orders, resolutions and decisions relative thereto were forwarded to the Court;

Issue
1. WON Judge Evelyn Gamotin-Nery​ is administratively liable for failure to decide cases within the
reglementary period? Yes
2. WON Gregorio D. Pantanosas, Jr ​failed to decide cases within the reglementary period? Yes
3. Won Mr. Alfredo B. Magno, Jr. is guilty ​of inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of his
official duties? Yes
4. WON Judge Eleuteria Badoles-Algodon ​ complied within 30 days from notice? No

Held:
BASIC LEGAL ETHICS 13
WED AND FRI / 7:00 - 8:30 PM
ATTY. AYO

1. Judge Evelyn Gamotin-Nery - ​explanation fails to convince us. Being designated Acting Presiding
Judge in another sala in addition to her original station is no excuse for respondent judges delay in promptly
deciding cases pending before her sala
Judges burdened with heavy caseloads should request the Court for an extension of the reglementary period
within which to decide their cases if they think they cannot comply with their judicial duty

Hence, under the circumstances, all that said judge needed to do was request for an extension of time since
this Court has, almost invariably, been considerate with regard to such requests. She did not avail of such
remedy

2. Gregorio D. Pantanosas, Jr - ​explanation that the undecided cases were never brought to his attention
during his incumbency​[32]​ deserves scant consideration. Proper and efficient court management is the
responsibility of the judge, and he is the one ​directly responsible ​for the proper discharge of his official
functions.​[33]​ It should be emphasized that the responsibility of making a physical inventory of cases primarily
rests on the presiding judge.

A judge cannot take refuge behind the inefficiency or mismanagement of his court personnel since proper and
efficient court management is his responsibility.

Court personnel are not the guardians of a judges responsibilities. The efficient administration of justice cannot
accept as an excuse the shifting of the blame from one court personnel to another. A judge should be the
master of his own domain and take responsibility for the mistakes of his subordinates

3. Mr. Alfredo B. Magno, Jr. – ​As to the liability of respondent clerk of court, it is undisputed that Mr.
Magno was remiss in his duty and responsibility as clerk of court by failing to adopt a system of record
management. His efficiency or inefficiency in the performance of his duties and responsibilities does not
depend on how his predecessors performed theirs. As the custodian of the courts funds, revenues, records,
properties and premises, clerks of court perform very delicate functions and are liable for any loss, shortage,
destruction or impairment thereof. It is presumed that they have familiarized themselves with the various
statutes and administrative circulars pertinent to their functions to effectively discharge their duties and
responsibilities.
​Thus, we are not inclined to be sympathetic to Mr. Magno because he cannot plead his lack of
knowledge (or ignorance) as an excuse. He is presumed to know his functions and responsibilities.

4. Judge Eleuteria Badoles-Algodon - ​OCA recommended that: ​(1)​ Judge Algodon be directed to comply
fully with the directives of the Resolution

Dispositive portion:
1. Judge Evelyn Gamotin-Nery​ - is adjudged administratively liable for failure to decide cases within the
reglementary period and is hereby ​FINED​in the amount of P10,500.00 with a ​STERN WARNING

2. Gregorio D. Pantanosas, Jr - ​failure to decide cases within the reglementary period, is meted a ​FINE ​of
P10,500.00 to be deducted from his retirement benefits.

3. Mr. Alfredo B. Magno, Jr. -​ found guilty of inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of his
official duties, hereby ​SUSPENDED​ for a period of six (6) months without pay but with a ​STERN WARNING

4. Judge Eleuteria Badoles-Algodon - ​is ​DIRECTED​ to fully comply within 30 days from notice
BASIC LEGAL ETHICS 14
WED AND FRI / 7:00 - 8:30 PM
ATTY. AYO

​Buzz Lightyear

5. Kilosbayan Foundation v. Executive Secretary Ermita and Justice Gregory Ong, G.R. No. 177721, 7/3/07
(Nelson)

FACTS: ​Petitioner filed a petition to set aside the appointment of Gregory Ong as Associate Justice of the
Supreme Court. Petitioner alleged that ​Ong is not a natural-born citizen and thus, is disqualified to become
a member of the Supreme Court. Respondent Ermita, on the other hand, contended that Ong was appointed
from a list of candidates given by the JBC and they have referred the matter back to the latter for the
determination of the issue regarding Ong’s citizenship. Respondent Ong contended that he is truly a
natural-born citizen, following a series of changes in nationalities and whatnot with respect to his ancestors. He
also contended that the petitioner has no standing to file the said petition.

HELD: ​First, on the issue of standing, the petitioners have standing as the issue involved is of utmost
importance—the citizenship of a person to be appointed as a member of the Supreme Court.

Second, on the principal issue of the case, the Court took judicial notice of Ong’s petition to be admitted to the
Philippine Bar. In his petition to be admitted to the Philippine bar, respondent alleged that he is qualified to be
admitted because among others he is a Filipino citizen, and that he became a citizen because his father
became a naturalized Filipino citizen and being a minor then, thus he too became a Filipino citizen. As part of
his evidence, he submitted his birth certificate and the naturalization papers of his father.

It was on basis of these allegations under oath and the submitted evidence of no less than Ong that the Court
allowed him to take his oath as a lawyer. It is clear therefore, that from the records of this Court, Ong is a
naturalized Filipino citizen. ​The alleged subsequent recognition of his natural-born status by the Bureau
of Immigration and the DOJ cannot amend the final decision of the trial court stating that Ong and his
mother were naturalized along with his father. Furthermore, as the petitioner correctly submitted, ​no
substantial change in an entry in the civil register can be made without a judicial order. Change in the
citizenship status is a substantial change. The long string of events that Ong alleged leading to him being a
natural-born citizen, all entail factual assertions that need to be threshed out in proper judicial proceedings.
NOTE: ​In this case, there has been no ouster from an appointment. There may be approval of the
appointment but it lacks other acts that will complete​ the appointment.

The last act in an appointment is the delivery of the commission. It is now up to the appointee—he must accept
the appointment, take an oath of office, assume office, etc. It doesn’t end here. The CSC can either reject or
approve of the appointment. When the appointee doesn’t pursue all the acts to assume office, the question is
whether or not he can be held liable. The law doesn’t provide really that there is a period to accept or reject an
appointment.

6. Antonio S. Ascaño et al. v. Judge Jose A. Jacinto, Jr. , A.M. RTJ 15-2405 - 1/12/15 (Yana)

Facts: ​Petitioners accused respondent Judge of having acted with bias and partiality in favor of Mayor
Villarosa for having disallowed 500 witness from the courtroom and for having ordered the lifting of a TRO in
favor of the mayor. Petitioners claimed that ​during the hearings, respondent “argued, berated, accused,
scolded, confused and admonished petitioners without basis or justification.​” They further claimed that
BASIC LEGAL ETHICS 15
WED AND FRI / 7:00 - 8:30 PM
ATTY. AYO

respondent judge asked complainants “confusing and misleading questions all geared and intended to elicit
answers damaging to the cause of petitioners and favorable to the cause of their adversary.”

Complainants alleged that it is common knowledge to the entire community of San Jose, Occidental Mindoro,
that r​espondent is beholden to Mayor Villarosa and is identified with the causes, friends, and allies of the latter.
Thus, complainants filed the instant complaint charging respondent with serious violations of the canons of the
Codes of Judicial Conduct and Judicial Ethics and for Violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019.

ISSUE: ​Whether or not respondent judge violated the New Code of Judicial Conduct

HELD: YES. ​As stated in the report, respondent raised his voice and uttered abrasive and unnecessary
remarks to petitioner's witness. Respondent failed to conduct himself in accordance with the mandate of
Section 6, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, which reads:

SECTION 6. 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. Judges shall require similar conduct of legal representatives, court staff and others subject to
their influence, direction or control.

A Judge should be considerate, courteous and civil to all persons who come to his court, viz:
It is reprehensible for a judge to humiliate a lawyer, litigant or witness. The act betrays lack of patience,
prudence and restraint. Thus, a judge must at all times be temperate in his language. He must choose his
words, written or spoken, with utmost care and sufficient control. The wise and just man is esteemed for his
discernment. Pleasing speech increases his persuasiveness.

This Court likewise finds that respondent violated Section 1 of Canon 2 and Section 1 of Canon 4 of the New
Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary.

WHEREFORE, this Court finds respondent Judge Jose S. Jacinto, Jr. guilty of unbecoming conduct and is
hereby FINED in the amount of TEN THOUSAND PESOS (₱10,000) and REPRIMANDED with a STERN
WARNING that a repetition of the same or a similar act shall be dealt with more severely.

7. Judge Medel Arnaldo Belen, A.M. No. RTJ-10-2216, June 26, 2012​ (Erica)

Facts​:State Prosecutor Comilang appeared before Judge Belen of the RTC of Calamba City
manifesting his inability to appear on Thursdays because of his inquest duties. He moved that all cases
scheduled for hearing before Judge Belen be deferred because he was set to appear for preliminary
investigation in the Provincial Prosecutor's Office on the same day.Instead of granting the motion, Judge Belen
issued his an Order requiring him to (1)explain why he did not inform the court of his previously-scheduled
preliminary investigation and (2) to pay a fine. Despite several motions filed by Prosecutor Comilang, the
respondent Judge cited him in contempt for the alleged unsubstantiated, callous and reckless charges
included in his motions.

State Prosecutor Comilang filed with CA petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for temporary
restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction assailing the Judge’s decision. CA issued a temporary
restraining order (TRO) enjoining Judge Belen from executing and enforcing his assailed Order and Decision.
However, Judge Belen ignored the decision andcited Comilang of indirect contempt for his alleged failure to
comply with the Order issued by the Respondent Judge.State Prosecutor Comilang filed a complaint-affidavit
before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) charging Judge Belen with manifest partiality and malice,
evident bad faith, inexcusable abuse of authority, and gross ignorance of the law in issuing the show cause
orders, subpoenas and contempt citations, in grave defiance to the injunctive writ issued by the CA.
BASIC LEGAL ETHICS 16
WED AND FRI / 7:00 - 8:30 PM
ATTY. AYO

State Prosecutor Comilang alleged that Judge Belen's acts were intended to harass,
oppress,persecute, intimidate, annoy, vex and coerce him, and to place him in a disadvantageous and
compromising position, as he was prosecuting the libel case instituted by herein complainant ​State
Prosecutor Lagman against Judge Belen when he was still a practicing lawyer.

Issue:​Whether or not Judge Belen's actuations showed manifest partiality and bias, evident bad faith,grave
abuse of authority and gross ignorance of the law warranting his dismissal from service

Held:​ In the case of Pesayco v. Layague,21

the Court succinctly explained:No less than the Code of Judicial conduct mandates that a judge
shall be faithful to the laws and maintain professional competence. Indeed, competence is a mark of a
good judge. A judge must be acquainted with legal norms and precepts as well as with procedural
rules. When a judge displays an utter lack of familiarity with the rules, he erodes the public’s confidence
in the competence of our courts. Such is gross ignorance of the law. One who accepts the exalted
position of a judge owes the public and the court the duty to be proficient in the
law.Unfamiliarity with the Rules of Court is a sign of incompetence. Basic rules of procedure must be at
the palm of a judge’s hands.

Thus, this Court has consistently held that a judge is presumed to know the law and when the law is so
elementary, not to be aware of it constitutes gross ignorance of the law. Verily, failure to follow basic legal
commands embodied in the law and the Rules constitutes gross ignorance of the law, from which no one is
excused, and surely not a judge.

This is because judges are expected to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with statutes and
procedural laws. They must know the laws and apply them properly in good faith as judicial competence
requires no less. Moreover, refusal to honor an injunctive order of a higher court constitutes contempt, as
in this case, where Judge Belen, in contumaciously defying the injunctive order issued by the CA .

Judge Belen's actuations, therefore, cannot be considered as mere errors of judgment that can be easily
brushed aside. Obstinate disregard of basic and established rule of law or procedure amounts to inexcusable
abuse of authority and gross ignorance of the law. Likewise, citing State Prosecutor Comilang for indirect
contempt notwithstanding the effectivity of the CA-issued writ of injunction demonstrated his vexatious attitude
and bad faith towards the former, for which he must be held accountable and subjected to disciplinary action.

WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Medel Arnaldo B. Belen, having been found guilty of grave abuse of
authority and gross ignorance of the law, is ​DISMISSED from the service

GOD IS GOOD ALL THE TIME.. ALL THE TIME GOD IS GOOD

Prepared by:

ATTY. A. G. AYO