1. So, the judges and justices can be disciplined when they commit wrongdoing? Why?

ANSWER…
YES, It has been said that a judge is the visible representation of the law or to put it differently,
the judge is the personification of justice and as such the judge must be “the embodiment of
competence, integrity and independence. (Agpalo, op. cit., p. 544, citing Office of the Court
Administrator vs. Gines, 224 SCRA 261 [1993])”

2. What is/are the basis for disciplining them?

ANSWER…
1. The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 transferred the administrative supervision of all courts and their
personnel from the Department of Justice to the Supreme Court. This was affirmed by Article VIII, Section 6 of the
1987 Constitution. To effectively discharge this constitutional mandate, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)
was created under Presidential Decree No. 828, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 842 (and its functions further
strengthened by a resolution of the Supreme Court en banc dated October 24, 1996). Its principal function is the
supervision and administration of the lower courts throughout the Philippines and all their personnel.1

1 https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/about/gov/judiciary/

2. Section 6, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution

It grants the Supreme Court administrative supervision over all courts and their personnel. This grant
empowers the Supreme Court to oversee the judges’ and court personnel’s administrative compliance with all laws,
rules, and regulations, ⁠ and to take administrative actions against them if they violate these legal norms. ⁠

3. Section 11, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution

The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall hold office during good behavior
until they reach the age of seventy years or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office. The
Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to discipline judges of lower courts, or order their dismissal by a vote
of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.

3. So, a judge is liable administratively, civilly, or criminally when he acts within his power and jurisdiction
ANSWER…

NO, GENERAL RULE: A judge is not liable administratively, civilly, or criminally when he acts within his power and
jurisdiction
This frees the judge from apprehension of personal consequences to himself and to preserve the integrity and
independence of the judiciary.

Exception:
1. Serious misconduct,
2. inefficiency;
3. gross and patent, or deliberate and malicious error;
4. bad faith
*3 and 4: ERROR OR IGNORANCE OF LAW
MISCONDUCT
Wrongful intention and not mere error in judgment (Raquiza v. Castaneda)

SERIOUS MISCONDUCT
Exists when the judicial act complained of is corrupt or inspired by an intention to violate the law or a persistent
disregard of well-known legal rules. (Galangi v. Macli-ing, Adm. Matter No. 75)

SERIOUS INEFFICIENCY
An example is negligence in the performance of duty, if reckless in character. (Lapena v. Collado)

ERROR OR IGNORANCE OF LAW

Error or mistake must be gross or patent, malicious, deliberate or in bad faith. Must act fraudulently, corruptly, or
with gross negligence.

4. What is the administrative procedure or DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST JUDGES AND

JUSTICES ? How are procedures instituted?
ANSWER

Section 1, Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that the disciplinary proceedings against judges and
justices may be instituted under either of three ways:
1. by the Supreme Court motu proprio;
2. upon a verified complaint; or
3. upon an anonymous complaint, supported by public records of indubitable integrity.

5. Why is anonymous complaint against them be given due course? ANSWER…

In anonymous complaint against district Judge Gibson A. Araula, Court of First Instance of Southern Leyte,
Branch X4 2: The court held that although the Court does not as a rule act on anonymous complaints, cases
are excepted in which the charge could be fully borne by public records of indubitable integrity, thus
needing no corroboration by evidence to be offered by complainant, whose identity and integrity could
hardly be material where the matter involved is of public interest

6. Is Resort to judicial remedies required? ANSWER…

NO,

In Mendova v. Judge Afable5: The Court cited, “now, the established doctrine and policy is that disciplinary
proceedings and criminal actions against Judges are not complementary or suppletory of, nor a substitute for, these
judicial remedies, whether ordinary or extraordinary. Resort to and
1. exhaustion of these judicial remedies, as well as the 2. entry of judgment in the corresponding action or
proceeding, are pre-requisites 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.”

7. What is the action on the complaint? ANSWER…

Section 2, Rule 140. If the complaint is sufficient in form and substance, a copy thereof shall be served upon
the respondent, and he shall be required to comment within ten (10) days from the date of service.
Otherwise, the same shall be dismissed.
 8. Will it automatically or mandatory strip them of their membership in the IBP? ANSWER…
The rule does not make it mandatory, before respondent may be held liable as a member of the bar, that
respondent be required to comment on and show cause why he should not be disciplinary sanctioned as
a lawyer separately from the order for him to comment on why he should not be held administratively
liable as a member of the bench. In other words, an order to comment on the complaint is an order to
give an explanation on why he should not be held administratively liable not only as a member of the
bench but also as a member of the bar. This is the fair and reasonable meaning of "automatic conversion"
of administrative cases against justices and judges26 to disciplinary proceedings against them as lawyers.
This will also serve the purpose of A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC to avoid the duplication or unnecessary replication
of actions by treating an administrative complaint filed against a member of the bench also as a disciplinary
proceeding against him as a lawyer by mere operation of the rule. Thus, a disciplinary proceeding as a
member of the bar is impliedly instituted with the filing of an administrative case against a justice of the
Sandiganbayan, Court of Appeals and Court of Tax Appeals or a judge of a first- or second-level court.

9. By whom complaint is investigated? ANSWER…

Section 3, Rule 140. Upon the filing of the respondent’s comment, or upon the expiration of the time for
filing the same and unless other pleadings or documents are required, the Court shall refer the matter to
the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation, report and recommendation or assign the case for
investigation, report, and recommendation to a retired member of the Supreme Court, if the respondent
is a Justice of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan, or to a Justice of the Court of Appeals, if the
respondent is a judge of a Regular Trial Court or of a special court of equivalent rank, or to a judge of the
Regional Trial Court if the respondent is a Judge of an inferior court.

10. How is hearing conducted? ANSWER…

Section 4, Rule 140. The investigating Justice or Judge shall set a day for the hearing and send notice
thereof to both parties. At such hearing, the parties may present oral and documentary evidence. If, after
due notice, the respondent fails to appear, the investigation shall proceed ex parte.

The investigating Justice or Judge shall terminate the investigation within ninety (90) days from the date of
its commencement or within such extension as the Supreme Court may grant.

11. After the investigation, what is the next action of the investigating Justice or Judge? ANSWER…
Report and recommendation
Section 5, Rule 140. Within thirty (30) days from the termination of the investigation, the investigating
Justice or Judge shall submit to the Supreme Court a report containing findings of fact and
recommendation. The report shall be accompanied by the record containing the evidence and the
pleadings filed by the parties. The report shall be confidential and shall be for exclusive use of the Court.

12. What are the classification of charges against them? ANSWER…

SEC. 7. Classification of charges. - Administrative charges are classified as serious, less serious, or light.

SEC. 8. Serious charges.

Serious charges include:
1. Bribery, direct or indirect;
2. Dishonesty and violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Law (R.A. No. 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; and
11. Alcoholism and/or vicious habits.

SEC. 9. Less Serious Charges. - Less serious charges include:

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; and
7. Simple Misconduct.

SEC. 10. Light Charges. - Light charges include:

1. Vulgar and unbecoming conduct;
2. Gambling in public;
3. Fraternizing with lawyers and litigants with pending case/cases in his court; and
4. Undue delay in the submission of monthly reports.

13. What is the Quantum of evidence required? ANSWER…

In the hierarchy of evidential values, the following order is:

1. First or highest is proof beyond reasonable doubt, required in criminal cases;
2. Second, clear and convincing evidence, which is that degree of proof which will produce in the mind of the
trier of facts a firm belief as to the allegations sought to be established and is between proof beyond reasonable
doubt and preponderance of evidence;
3. Third, preponderance of evidence, which that degree of evidence required in civil cases; and
4. Last, substantial evidence, which is the lowest degree of proof required in administrative proceedings.

Proof beyond reasonable doubt:

 burden of proof in criminal cases.
 does not mean such a degree of proof, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty
 moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.
 still the standard for criminal prosecutions under the Intellectual Property Code. (ABS-CBN Corp. v. Gozon, G.R. No.
195956, March 11, 2015)

Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if:

a)There is more than one circumstance;

b)The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
c)The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

Preponderance of evidence:
 burden of proof in civil cases
 is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on either side
 synonymous with the term "greater weight of evidence" or "greater weight of credible evidence
Substantial Evidence:
 burden of proof in administrative or quasi-judicial bodies.
 means "that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.”
 affidavits may be sufficient to establish substantial evidence (Punongbayan & Araullo v. Lepon, G.R. No. 174115,
November 9, 2015)

It may be mentioned that in disbarment cases against lawyers, “only clear preponderance of evidence is required
to establish liability” which is the quantum of evidence required in civil cases.

Ethical Dilemma:

1. If the administrative offense involves a violation of a criminal law, which if proved will require dismissal
of a judge from the service, the quantum of evidence required to hold him liable is proof beyond reasonable
doubt, as held in Loyola v. Gabo, Jr., 11 “A judge to be held liable for knowingly rendering an unjust judgment, it
must be established beyond cavil that the judgment adverted to is unjust, contrary to or unsupported by the
evidence, and that the same was rendered with conscious and deliberate intent to do an injustice. In other words,
the quantum of proof required to hold respondent judge guilty for alleged violations of Section 3(e) of R.A. 301912
and Article 206 of the Revised Penal Code, is proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Concededly, administrative proceedings are not strictly bound by formal rule on evidence. The Rules even in an
administrative case, demand that, if the respondent judge should be disciplined for grave misconduct or any graver
offense, the evidence against him should be competent and should be derived from direct knowledge.”

The Supreme Court amended Rule 140, pursuant to which it classified the charges against judges into serious, less
serious and light, and fixed the sanctions that may be imposed accordingly. The quantum of evidence may depend
on the nature of the charge in light of the classifications of the charges.

2. Where the charge refers to the administrative aspect arising from the criminal act which requires
dismissal from service, such as gross immorality as held in Castillo v. Calanog, 13 or where the charge is less
serious, preponderance of evidence is necessary. Where the charge is light, mere substantial evidence may be
required.

“In dismissing a judge from service for gross immorality, it is of no import that the evidence on record is not
sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt the facts of concubinage having existed and been committed. This is
not a criminal case for concubinage but an administrative matter that invokes the power of supervision of this
Court over the members of the judiciary.”

11 A.M. No. RTJ-00-1524. January 26, 2000

12 R.A 3019 ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT
13 A.M. No. RTJ-90-447. July 12, 1991
17

14. What are the sanctions? ANSWER…

SEC. 11, Rule 140. Sanctions.

A. If the respondent is guilty of a serious charge, any of the following sanctions may be imposed:
 1. Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court may determine, and
disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or
controlled corporations. Provided, however, that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave
credits;

2. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than three (3) but not exceeding six
(6) months; or

3. A fine of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00

B. If the respondent is guilty of a less serious charge, any of the following sanctions shall be imposed:

1. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) nor more than three
(3) months; or

2. A fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00.

C. If the respondent is guilty of a light charge, any of the following sanctions shall be imposed:
1. A fine of not less than P1,000.00 but not exceeding P10,000.00 and/or
2. Censure;
3. Reprimand;
4. Admonition with warning.

15. Is the proceeding open to the public for viewing? ANSWER…

SEC. 12, Rule 140.

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.

The confidential character of proceedings during their pendency has a three-fold purpose:

1. It is to enable the Supreme Court to make its investigation free from any extraneous influence or
interference.

2. It is to protect the personal and professional reputation of the Justices and Judges from baseless charges
of disgruntled, vindictive and irresponsible persons or litigants by prohibiting the publication of such charges
pending their final resolution.

3. It is to deter the press from publishing the charges or proceedings based thereon for even a verbatim
reproduction of the complaint against a Judge in a newspaper may be actionable.

However, the confidentiality of the proceedings is a privilege or right which may be waived by the Judge.
After the Supreme Court shall have rendered its decision or resolution in the administrative case, a copy thereof is
attached to the record of the respondent in the Office of the Court Administrator. The proceeding then ceases to be
confidential, and the decision becomes a public document, just like any other decisions of the Court.
 16. Is there a prescriptive period to bring disciplinary actions? ANSWER…

Delay in filing an administrative complaint should not be construed as basis to questions its veracity or credibility. In
any case, administrative offenses including those committed by members of the bench and the bar, are not subject
to the fixed period within which they must be reported. No matter how much time has elapsed from the time
of the commission of the act complained of and the time of the institution of the complaint, erring members of
the bench and bar cannot escape the disciplining arm of the Court. (Sison-Barias v. Rubia, A.M. No. RTJ-14-2388,
June 10, 2014)

Reason:

If the rule were otherwise, members of the bar would be emboldened to disregard the very oath they took as
lawyers, prescinding from the fact that as long as no private complaint would immediately come forward, they
stand a chance of being completely exonerated from whatever administrative liability they ought to answer for.
It is the duty of the Court to protect the integrity of the practice of law as well as the administration of justice.
This categorical pronouncement is aimed at unscrupulous members of the bench and the bar, to deter them from
committing acts which violate the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Code of Judicial Conduct or the Lawyer’s
Oath (Sison-Barias v. Rubia, A.M. No. RTJ-14-2388, June 10, 2014)

17. Can the judge be reinstated after previously dismissed? ANSWER…

No, Reinstatement is essentially an act of appointment of a judge, which may only be extended by the President of
the Philippines. However, the Supreme Court has reinstated dismissed judges to their former positions. In this
sense, the decision of the Supreme Court dismissing a judge from service does not become final, as the Court may
still reinstate him to his former position or reduce the pecuniary penalties. Where a judge has been dismissed for
conviction of a crime which carries with it permanent disqualification from holding government office, the
Supreme Court may not reinstate the dismissed judge to the service without negating the final conviction with
regard to his disqualification.

Disciplinary proceedings against judges must be based on the rule of law and carried out in
accordance with certain basic principles aimed at safeguarding judicial independence.

In order to safeguard the independence of the judiciary and shield judges from prosecution or
vexatious civil claims provide that judges enjoy a certain degree of immunity from civil or criminal
jurisdiction. Such immunity is not general; it relates only to activities undertaken in good faith in
the exercise of judicial functions. Existing standards do not provide comprehensive guidance on
the kinds of behaviour that may trigger the liability or the procedures to establish it.

Bribery — Whether direct or indirect, can seriously affect the public’s trust in every subdivision
and agency of government, more so in the judiciary. (Office of the Court Administrator vs. Judge
Alinea, Jr., A.M. No. MTJ-05-1574, Nov. 07, 2017)

Code of Judicial Conduct — A judge should diligently discharge administrative

responsibilities, maintain professional competence in court management, and facilitate the
performance of the administrative functions of other judges and court personnel; a judge should
organize and supervise the court personnel to ensure the prompt and efficient dispatch of
business, and require at all times the observance of high standards of public service and fidelity.
(Re: Report on the Preliminary Results of the Spot Audit in the RTC, Br. 170, Malabon City,
A.M. No. 16-05-142-RTC, Sept. 05, 2017)
— Requires judges to exemplify propriety at all times in order to preserve public confidence in the
judiciary. (OCA vs. Judge Buyucan, A.M. No. MTJ-15-1854, July 11, 2017)

Conduct — Mere imputation of bias and partiality against a judge is insufficient because bias and partiality
can never be presumed; bad faith or malice cannot be inferred simply because the judgment is adverse
to a party. (Atty. Tamondong vs. Judge Pasal, A.M. No. RTJ-16-2467, Oct. 18, 2017)

Direct bribery — Involves the act of a public officer in accepting an offer or promise, or
receiving a gift, by himself or another, with a view to perform a crime or an unjust act, or commit
an omission, which is connected to his official duties; it is a crime involving moral turpitude, an
act which is done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals, and involves an act of
baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private duties which a man owes his fellowmen, or to
society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man
and woman, or conduct contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals, and which
renders any person convicted of the said offense unfit to continue discharging his duties as a
public official or a lawyer. (Office of the Court Administrator vs. Judge Alinea, Jr., A.M. No. MTJ-
05-1574, Nov. 07, 2017)

Discipline of — A disciplinary case against a judge or justice brought before the Supreme
Court is an administrative proceeding; it is subject to the rules and principles governing
administrative procedures. (Anonymous Complaint vs. Judge Dagala, A.M. No. MTJ-16-1886,
July 25, 2017)
— Proceedings for the discipline of judges and justices of lower courts may be instituted in three
ways: by the Supreme Court motu proprio, through a verified complaint, and through an
anonymous complaint; a verified complaint must be supported by affidavits of persons who have
personal knowledge of the facts alleged or by documents which may substantiate the
allegations; an anonymous complaint, on the other hand, should be supported by public records
of indubitable integrity; while anonymous complaints should always be treated with great
caution, the anonymity of the complaint does not, in itself, justify its outright dismissal.
(Anonymous Complaint vs. Judge Dagala, A.M. No. MTJ-16-1886, July 25, 2017)

Duties — As the administrative officer who has authority over the office of the clerk of court,
judges should be familiar with the different circulars of the Court as his duty is not confined to
adjudicatory functions, but includes the administrative responsibility of organizing and
supervising the court personnel to secure a prompt and efficient dispatch of business. (OCA vs.
Judge Buyucan, A.M. No. MTJ-15-1854, July 11, 2017)
— Includes the administrative responsibility of organizing and supervising the court personnel to secure
a prompt and efficient dispatch of business; it is his responsibility to see to it that the clerk of court
performs his duties and observes the circulars issued by the Supreme Court. (OCA vs. Judge Buyucan,
A.M. No. MTJ-15-1854, July 11, 2017

Violation of Supreme Court Circulars, Rules and Directives — In Executive Judge Apita v. Estanislao, the
Court had the occasion to explain that: While the 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court which defines
the general functions of all court personnel in the judiciary provides that court personnel may perform
other duties the presiding judge may assign from time to time, said additional duties must be directly
related to, and must not significantly vary from, the court personnel’s job description; Sec. 7, Canon IV
of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel expressly states that court personnel shall not be required
to perform any work outside the scope of their job description. (Re: Anonymous Complaints against
Hon. Dinah Bandong, former Presiding Judge, RTC, Br. 59, Lucena City, Quezon Province, A.M. No. RTJ-
17-2507, Oct. 09, 2017)

Bias and partiality — The totality of the circumstances and the actuations of the respondent judge
attendant to the case, clearly lead to the inescapable conclusion that the respondent judge evidently
favoured a party is a clear indicium of bias and partiality that calls for a severe administrative sanction.
(Dr. Sunico vs. Judge Gutierrez, A.M. No. RTJ-16-2457, Feb. 21, 2017)