JUDICIAL ETHICS – NEW CODE OF JUDICIAL
CONDUCT
Judicial Ethics
- It is the branch of moral science which treats of
the right and proper conduct and behavior to be
observed by all judges and magistrates in trying
and deciding controversies brought before them
for adjudication which conduct and behavior
must be demonstrative of independence,
integrity, impartiality, propriety, equality,
competence and diligence
It talks also about right and proper conduct and
behavior which must be observed by judges and
justices when they perform their judicial functions.
To emphasize the main function of a judge: to hear
and decide cases based on the pleadings and
evidences submitted and presented by the party
litigants.
And in this definition of judicial ethics, you can
already see here the different canons of the new code
of judicial conduct. We have there independence,
integrity, impartiality, propriety, equality,
competence and diligence.
New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine
Judiciary (A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC, 1 June 2004)
Did not completely repeal the old Canons of Judicial
Ethics (Administrative Order No. 162) adopted in the
Philippines and the Code of Judicial Conduct of 1989
It’s good to know how judges and justices should
conduct themselves, should deport themselves before
party litigants. And also how judges and justices
should control and supervise hearings and pleadings
before the court.
Significance of the New Code
It updates and correlates the Code of Judicial
Conduct and the Canons of Judicial Ethics and
stresses the Philippines’ solidarity with the universal
clamor for a universal code of judicial ethics.
Now, it’s also good to know about the new code
because some of you may decide to join the judiciary.
It’s good to have a working knowledge about the new
code for judges. Although right after becoming
lawyers, you cannot immediately apply to be
appointed as a judge. For you to be appointed as an
MTC judge, you must be at least 30 years of age and
must be in the practice of law for at least 5 years. If
you aspire to become an RTC judge, you must be at
least 35 years of age and must be in the practice of
law for at least 10 years. If you want to aspire to be
an SC justice, you must be at least 40 years of age
and must be in the practice of law for at least 15
years.
The New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine
Judiciary is divided into 6 canons
CANON 1 – Independence
CANON 2 – Integrity
CANON 3 – Impartiality
CANON 4 – Propriety
CANON 5 – Equality
CANON 6 – Competence and Diligence
CANON 1 – INDEPENDENCE
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.
It talks about individual and institutional
independence. The thing to note of the 8 sections of
Canon 1 is on this concept of individual and
institutional independence.
First, when we say independence, this means
freedom from the influence or control from others. A
judge as a person and the court as office should be
free from control from influence from third persons.
Third persons could be friends, family members,
other judges, other government agencies, party
litigants, etc. These are covered by third persons who
should not control nor influence the actuations of a
judge when he is performing his judicial function.
When we say individual judicial independence, this
refers to a judge as a person and as a person, the
judge must be free from the influences of other
persons like his friends or family members, other
third parties, other government institutions or
agencies. No personal relationship should influence
him to do or not to do.
When we say institution judicial independence, this
refers to the office—the court. As the court, the
judiciary should not be influenced and should not be
dictated by the other government departments and
agencies. (Remember separation of powers in
political law)
Under Section 1 of Canon 1 on independence, it
provides there that a judge in hearing and deciding
cases—which is his main function—he shall do this
function independently and on the basis of his
assessment of the facts and the applicable law and
jurisprudence free from any extraneous influence,
inducement, pressure, threat, or interference, direct
or indirect from any person. It should be himself. He
should not be controlled nor be influenced by any
other persons when he will decide on a case. He
should not be swayed by opinions from the public,
from his friends. He will decide the case based on the
pleadings submitted by the parties, based on his
1
assessment on these pleadings and on the evidences
adduced by the parties.
CANON 2 – INTEGRITY
Integrity is essential not only to the proper discharge
of the judicial office but also to the personal demeanor
of judges.
It talks about integrity, not only when the judge is
performing his judicial function, but also as to the
personal demeanor of the judge. Integrity, in other
words, should be present both in the public and
private life of a judge. So, with this Canon on
Integrity, judges must not only be good judges but
they must also be good persons and they must also
appear to be good persons.
Why is it that they must also appear to be good
persons? Because in the New Code of Judicial
Conduct, it is not enough that the judge is person of
integrity, it is not enough that the judge is impartial,
it is not enough that the judge act with
appropriateness, it is equally important that he may
be seen and he must appear to be impartial, to be a
person of integrity.
In fact, under Canon 2 Section 1 thereof, it provides
there that 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. Appearance
is also very important. Judges should be careful in
their conduct, not only when they are hearing and
deciding cases, but also outside the courts because
they should be persons of integrity both in their
public and private lives.
Judges are presumed to be honest and men of
integrity, unless proven otherwise. And judges, they
enjoy that presumption because one of the
requirements for a lawyer to be appointed as a judge
or justice is that he must be a person of proven
competence, integrity, probity, and independence. If
he is appointed as a judge/justice, it is presumed that
he has those qualifications, and he enjoys that
presumption. Any person who claims otherwise has
the burden of proof. They must prove their
allegations that the judge is a bad person.
Thing to note under Canon 2 is that this value on
integrity must be present, not only in his public life,
but only on his private life. In fact, integrity should
also be present in the personal demeanor of judges,
not only when they are dealing with party litigants,
but also when they are dealing with the public in
general.
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.
Now, impartiality is a state of mind of the judge,
where there is no sense of favor for, bias, or prejudice,
against any parties in the case. In other words, he
should not discriminate. If the judge is impartial,
then he decides without regard to the personalities
involved in the case pending before him. He treats
party litigants, as well as the lawyers for the party
litigants, equally and fairly. He resolves the case
based on the weight of the evidence presented and
admitted and he applies that law, an applicable
jurisprudence, to the facts of the case. And if he is
impartial, he will not be influence and should not be
influenced by third persons. Impartiality is also
connected on the concept of Independence under
Canon 1.
If you dissect the Canon itself, it is not enough that
the decision promulgated by the judge is impartial, it
is equally important also that the process of
preparing and promulgating the decision is also
impartial. That the judge in hearing and deciding the
case, in drafting the decision, he is also impartial and
seen to be impartial.
That is why under Canon 3 Impartiality, applies not
only to the decision but also to the process by which
the decision is made.
There are 6 sections under Canon 3. Section 1 of
Canon 3, it reinforces the Canon. It states that judges
should perform their judicial duties without favor,
bias, or prejudice. Just like the Lady Justice, she is
blindfolded and the scale of justice. She is blindfolded
because the Lady Justice does not look at the persons
of the parties in that case, but only to that weight of
evidence on the scale and on the applicable law and
jurisprudence.
If a party litigant or if a lawyer in that case will say
that the judge is bias, then, the burden of proof lies
with the complainant.
Thing to note under Canon 3 on Impartiality, that the
judges under Section 2, they are required to ensure
that their conduct both in and out of court, this
conduct will maintain and enhance the confidence of
the public in the impartiality of the judge and of the
judiciary. Judges should be careful in their
actuations, not only when they are in their office, but
also outside the office so as to maintain the
impartiality of the judge as a person, and of the court
as office, as a branch of the government. In relation
to Section 2 of Canon 3, you have there Section 3, it
requires judges so far as reasonable to conduct
themselves and to avoid situations or occasion on
which will give rise to situations wherein there will
be questions on his impartiality.
2
Another thing to note on Canon 3 is on the
disqualification of a judge (Section 5). And under
Section 5, it mentioned their instances wherein the
judge should disqualify himself. Disqualify, it means
that the judge should not hear or decide a case raffled
to his sala if these instances happen like:
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 family has an
economic interest in the outcome of the matter in
controversy
d) the judge served as an executor, administrator,
guardian, trustee, or lawyer in the case or matter in
controversy or a former associate of the judge served
as counsel
e) during their association the judge or lawyer was a
material witness therein
f) if the judge is related by consanguinity or affinity
to a party litigant within the sixth civil degree or
counsel within the fourth civil degree
You may have heard of the term “inhibition.” Motion
for inhibition, a party through his lawyer, may file a
motion for the inhibition of a judge based on any of
the grounds mentioned under Section 5. If any of the
ground are present, then the judge should inhibit
himself.
What happens if the judge inhibits? The case will be
removed from his sala, it will be taken out from his
sala, from his docket, that case will go back to the
office of the clerk of court and that case will be raffled
to another judge because the judge whom the case
was first raffled to is disqualified under the rules.
CANON 4 – PROPRIETY
Propriety and the appearance of propriety are
essential to the performance of all the activities of a
judge.
The Canon talks about activities of the judge and
when it states activities, it refers not only to the
activities pertaining to the public function of a judge,
it also covers activities in the private life of the judge.
Propriety must be present just like integrity,
propriety must also be present and must be observed
by judges, not only in their public but also in their
private lives.
There are 15 sections under Canon 4.
The thing to note under Canon 4 is on judges wherein
they are allowed to do other activities outside their
judicial duties like writing articles, teaching law in
law schools. The only condition is that in the
performance of these activities outside and in
addition to their judicial functions, these activities
should not conflict with their public duties.
CANON 5 – EQUALITY
Ensuring equality of treatment to all before the
courts is essential to the due performance of the
judicial office.
This Canon is a new provision. This is not found in
the Old Code. There are 5 sections Under Canon 5. If
you go through these sections, these sections are
interrelated to the sections on Impartiality and also
on the sections on Independence covered by Canons 3
and 1, respectively.
In Equality, the judge must treat all litigants with
equality regardless of their race, nationality, sex, or
religion. There must be no discrimination. There
should be no bias. There should be no partiality. He
must be impartial.
In fact, the Canon itself, it requires equal treatment
to all. “All” refers not only to party litigants but all
persons who have legal business with the court. By
adhering to this principle of equality to all, judges
shall not entertain bias or prejudice by reason of the
race, color, sex, religion, age, marital status, sexual
orientation, social and economic status of litigants
seeking justice in the courts. By adhering to this
principle of equality, judges must treat all fairly and
equally despite their striking diversities and
differences in many aspects of their life status and
experience.
In this Canon, judges should also see to it that their
staff in the courts should also observe this concept of
equality. He should see to it that his clerk of court,
that his process server, that his stenographer, should
also treat equally all persons who come to court. If a
judge is required not to discriminate, his staff also
are required not to discriminate any person who has
legal business with the court.
CANON 6 – COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE
Competence and diligence are prerequisites to the
due performance of judicial office
It is very important that the judge is competent and
diligent because of the serious responsibilities and
duties attached to his office. His task to decide on
cases, criminal or civil or special proceedings, which
will involve the property, liberty, and life of parties.
It is very important that the judge is competent and
the judge is diligent in the performance of his duties.
3
Under Canon 6 on Competence and Diligence, there
are 7 sections.
Thing to note under these sections is that the judge
is also required to take reasonable steps to maintain
and enhance his knowledge on law and procedure.
Just like lawyers who are required under Canon 5, in
relation to the requirement of MCLE to keep
themselves updated with latest law and
jurisprudence, under Canon 6 of the New Code for
judges, they are also required to keep themselves
informed about developments on law and
jurisprudence. In fact, under section 4 of Canon 6,
judges are also required to keep themselves informed
about relevant developments on international law,
including international conventions and other
instruments establishing human rights norms.
Why is it important? This is important because
judges, they are the visible representation of the law.
And for judges to accord justice to the parties who
come before the court then he must be able to
competently decide on these cases.
Under Canon 6, also, judges are required to decide
cases within the period under the law. The period
within which courts should decide cases. The
Supreme Court has 24 months from date the case is
submitted to render a decision. For lower collegiate
courts, they have 12 months to decide on a case and
three months for lower courts.
Now, if he is pressed for time—he cannot decide on
case within the three-month period, what he should
do in order to avoid administrative liability is to
timely ask for additional time to dispose of the case.
He should ask for extension, otherwise, if he is
audited by the SC for the pending cases and it was
discovered by the SC, then he can be subject to
disciplinary actions for violation for Canon 6 on
Competence and Diligence. They should ask for
extension if they cannot decide the case within the
period. If they are given the extension, they should
also see to it that they were able to dispose of that
case, render a decision, within the extended period.
Ways of instituting charges against a judge
Administrative Cases against Justices, Judges may
be automatically treated as disbarment cases
Justices and Judges are also protected from baseless
and unfounded administrative complaints
If a judge will render a decision, the remedy of the
losing party is not to file an administrative case
against the judge. What the losing party should do,
as a general rule, is to avail of the remedies provided
in the Rules of Court. If you lose in the RTC, your
remedy is to go up to the Court of Appeals up to the
Supreme Court.
Exception to this rule is when there is bad faith,
fraud, dishonesty, corruption attendant to the
rendition of the decision or order by the judge. If such
is the case, and there is also the attendant violation
of any of the provisions of the New Code of Judicial
Conduct, then aside from and in addition to availing
of the remedies like appeal or petitions for certiorari,
the aggrieved party may also file an administrative
case against the judge or justice.
What are the ways of instituting charges against a
judge?
You have to check Rule 140 of the Rules of Court. This
Rule 140 has been amended by the SC when it issued
A.M. No. 18-01-05 in 2018 wherein the SC created the
Judicial Integrity Board as well as the Corruption
Prevention and Investigation Office. Based on this
issuance by the SC on how to institute complaints
against a judge, it can be instituted:
1. It may be instituted motu proprio by the Supreme
Court in the Judicial Integrity Board.
The SC, on its own, can initiate the complaint.
2. It can be initiated by any aggrieved party or any
person through a verified complaint
3. It can be initiated upon any anonymous
complaint.
This will be filed with the Supreme Court.
You cannot file a complaint against a judge with the
IBP. The IBP has no power to investigate a judge.
The power to investigate a judge is with the SC. And
the SC has created this Judicial Integrity Board as
well as the Corruption Prevention and Investigation
Office to do the investigation against judges.
Now, in the institution of these administrative cases
against judges and justices wherein it may end up
with the suspension, warning, or removal of the judge
or justice (lower collegiate courts) from office. In filing
these administrative cases against these judges, the
SC may also treat these cases as a disbarment case
against the justice or judge. Aside from possible
removal of office, that administrative case may also
lead to a possible suspension or disbarment of the
judge from the practice of law because these
administrative cases may be automatically treated as
a disbarment case against the judge. As to when it
would be treated as a disbarment case, it’s up to the
discretion of the Supreme Court.
Take note that while the investigation may be done
by the Judicial Integrity Board, still the one which
will do the final ruling will be the Supreme Court.
4
Under this Rule 140 as amended, justices and judges
are also protected from baseless and unfounded
administrative complaints.
If the one who filed that baseless and unfounded
administrative complaint against the judge is a non-
lawyer, then, that person who filed the case may be
asked and required by the SC to explain why he
should not be cited for contempt of court. If the
complainant is a lawyer, then SC will require that
lawyer to explain why he should not be suspended or
disbar for filing that baseless administrative
complaint.
MAIN OBJECTS OF DISBARMENT AND
SUSPENSION
1. to compel the attorney to deal fairly and honestly
with his clients
2. to remove from the profession a person whose
misconduct has proved him unfit to be entrusted with
the duties and responsibilities belonging to the office
of an attorney
3. to punish the lawyer although not so much as to
safeguard the administration of justice
4. to set an example or a warning for the other
members of the bar
5. to safeguard the administration of justice from
incompetence and dishonesty of lawyers
6. to protect the public
CHARACTERISTICS OF DISBARMENT
PROCEEDINGS
1. Sui generis
-It is a class by itself and it is neither a civil or a
criminal proceeding.
2. Defense of double jeopardy cannot be availed of
-Disbarment does not partake of a criminal
proceeding. Thus a lawyer who was found guilty of a
criminal offense cannot put up the defense of double
jeopardy in the disbarment proceeding filed against
him which is based on the same facts as the criminal
case.
3. Can be initiated motu proprio by the Supreme
Court
-It can be initiated without a complainant.
4. Can proceed regardless of interest or lack of
interest of the complainant, if the facts so warrant
- A lawyer will still be disbarred for ignoring the
proceedings involving hearings of his disbarment.
5. Imprescriptible
-No matter how much time has elapsed from the time
of the commission of the act complaint of and the time
of the institution of the complaint, erring members of
the bench and bar cannot escape the disciplinary arm
of the Court
6. Conducted confidentially
-Disbarment proceedings are conducted
confidentially being confidential in nature until its
final determination. However, the confidential
nature of the proceedings can be waived by the
respondent lawyer.
7. In itself due process of law
- Rules that are administered by the Court is in
accordance with established and legal principles and
procedures to uphold the integrity of the Court as
well as the profession.
8. Whatever has been decided in a disbarment case
cannot be a source of right that may be enforced in
another action
-
9. In pari delicto rule is not applicable
10. No prejudicial question in disbarment
proceedings
11. Penalty in a disbarment case cannot be in the
alternative
- Legal principles in penal law should not apply in
administrative disciplinary actions such as
disbarment proceedings.
12. Monetary claims cannot be granted except
restitution and return of monies and properties of the
client given in the course of the lawyer-client
relationship
-
QUALIFICATIONS OF A NOTARY PUBLIC:
1. must be a citizen of the Philippines
2. must be over 21 years of age
3. must be a resident in the Philippines for at least 1
year and maintains a regular place of work or
business in the city or province where the commission
is to be issued
4. must be a member of the Philippine Bar in good
standing with clearances from the Office of the Bar
Confidant of the Supreme Court and the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines
5. must not have been convicted in the first instance
of any crime involving moral turpitude
5
GROUNDS FOR SUSPENSION/DISBARMENT

1. Deceit
- Deceit is a fraudulent and deceptive
misrepresentation, artifice, or device, used by one or
more persons to deceive and trick another, who is
ignorant of the true facts, to the prejudice and
damage of the party imposed upon.
- There must be a false representation as to the
matter of fact.

2. Malpractice or other gross misconduct in office

- This refers to any malfeasance or dereliction of duty
committed by a lawyer.
- Legal malpractice consists of failure of an attorney
to use such skill, prudence, and diligence as lawyers
of ordinary skill and capacity commonly possess and
exercise in performance of tasks which they
undertake, and when such failure proximately causes
damage it gives rise to an action in tort.

3. Grossly immoral conduct

- It is difficult to state with precision and to fix an
inflexible standard as to what is “grossly immoral
conduct”.
- Immoral conduct is that conduct which is willful,
flagrant, or shameless, and which shows moral
indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable
members of the community.

4. Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude

- When a lawyer is convicted of a crime involving
moral turpitude which means everything which is
done contrary to justice, modesty, or good morals; an
act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private
and social duties which a man owes his fellowmen, or
to society in general, contrary to justice, honesty,
modesty or good morals.

5. Violation of oath of office

- The attorney’s oath is a condense code of ethics and
if it is violated, it is a ground for suspension or
disbarment.

6. Willful disobedience of any lawful order of a

superior court
- Here, the disobedience must be willful. It involves
the willful resistance or defiance to the order of the
Court.

7. Corrupt or willful appearance as an attorney for a

party to case without authority to do so
- It is prohibited for a lawyer to appear for a person
in court without being hired or employed, unless,
there is leave of court first obtained.