NOTARIAL PRACTICE
Every petition for a notarial commission shall be
in writing, verified, and shall include the
following:
1. A statement containing the petitioner's
personal qualifications, including the
petitioner's date of birth, residence,
telephone number, professional tax receipt,
roll of attorney's number and IBP
membership number;
2. Certification of good moral character of the
petitioner by at least 2 executive officers of
the local chapter of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines where he is applying for
commission;
3. Proof of payment for the filing of the petition
as required by the Rules on Notarial Practice;
and
4. Three passport-size color photographs with
light background taken within 30 days of the
application. The photograph should not be
retouched. The petitioner shall sign his name
at the bottom part of the photographs (Sec.
2,Rule III, A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC).
NOTE: Every petitioner for a notarial commission
shall pay the application fee as prescribed in the
Rules of Court (Sec. 3, Rule III, A.M. No. 02-8-13-
SC).
Requirements before the executive judge
conduct a summary hearing on the petition
1. The petition is sufficient in form and
substance;
2. The petitioner proves the allegations
contained in the petition; and
3. The petitioner establishes to the satisfaction
of the Executive Judge that he has read and
fully understood the Rules on Notarial
Practice.
NOTE: The Executive Judge shall forthwith
issue a commission and a Certificate of
Authorization to Purchase a Notarial Seal in
favor of the petitioner (Sec. 4, Rule III, A.M.
No. 02-8-13-SC)
Two kinds of duties
1. Execution of formalities required by law; and
2. Verification of the capacity and identity of
the parties as well as the legality of the act
executed
139
DUTIES OF A NOTARY PUBLIC
1. To keep a notarial register
2. To make the proper entry or entries in his
notarial register touching his notarial acts in
the manner required by the law
3. To send the copy of the entries to the proper
clerk of court within the first 10 days of the
month next following
4. To affix to acknowledgments the date of
expiration of his commission, as required by
law
5. To forward his notarial register, when filled,
to the proper clerk of court
6. To make report, within reasonable time to
the proper judge concerning the performance
of his duties, as may be required by such
judge
7. To make the proper notation regarding
residence certificates (Sec. 240, Rev. Adm.
Code).
FEES OF NOTARY PUBLIC
1. For performing a notarial act, a notary public
may charge the maximum fee as prescribed
by the Supreme Court unless he waives the
fee in whole or in part (Sec. 1, Rule V, A. M. 02-
8-13-SC);
2. A notary public may charge travel fees and
expenses separate from the notarial fees
when traveling to perform a notarial act if the
notary public and the person requesting the
notarial act agree prior to the travel (Sec. 2,
Rule, A. M. 02-813-SC);
3. No fee or compensation of any kind, except
those expressly prescribed and allowed
herein, shall be collected or received for any
notarial service (Sec. 3, Rule V, A. M. 02-813-
SC);
4. A notary public shall not require payment of
any fees specified prior to the performance of
a notarial act unless otherwise agreed upon
(Sec. 4, first par.,, Rule V, A. M. 02-813-SC);
5. Any travel fees and expenses paid to a notary
public prior to the performance of a notarial
act are not subject to refund if the notary
public already traveled but failed to complete
in whole or in part the notarial act for
reasons beyond his control and without
negligence on his part (Sec. 4, second par.,
Rule V, A. M. 02-813-SC).
NOTE: A notary public who charges fee for
notarial services shall issue a receipt registered
with the Bureau of Internal Revenue and keep a
journal of notarial fees. He shall enter in the
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 Legal Ethics
journal all fees charges for services rendered. A
notary public shall post in a conspicuous place in
his office a complete schedule of chargeable
notarial fees (Sec. 5, Rule V, A. M. 02-813-SC).
Q: Ms. Seller and Mr. Buyer presented to a
commissioned notary public a deed of sale for
notarization. The notary public explained to
them the transaction the deed embodies and
asked them if they were freely entering the
transaction. After the document was signed by
all the parties, the notary public collected the
notarial fee but did not issue any BIR-
registered receipt. Is the notarization of the
deed proper? (2013 Bar)
A: The notarization of the deed is proper because
any irregularity in the payment of the notarial
fees does not affect the validity of the
notarization made (Ocampo v. Land Bank of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 164968, July 3, 2009).
TERM OF OFFICE OF A NOTARY PUBLIC
Term of office of a notary public (1995 Bar)
A notary public may perform notarial acts for a
period of 2 years commencing the 1st day of
January of the year in which the commissioning is
made until the last day of December of the
succeeding year regardless of the actual date
when the application was renewed, unless earlier
revoked or the notary public has resigned under
the Rules on Notarial Practice and the Rules of
Court (Section 11, Rule III, A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC).
E.g. Atty. Antonio applied for and was given
notarial commission on 12 November 2010, such
term will expire on 31 December 2011 (2011
Bar).
Q: Juan dela Cruz was commissioned as a
notary public in 2001. His friend asked him to
notarize a deed of absolute sale sometime in
2004, to which he agreed free of charge. A
complaint for malpractice was filed against
him. Is Juan dela Cruz guilty of malpractice?
A: YES. Absent any showing that his notarial
commission has been renewed, his act constitutes
malpractice because at the time he notarized the
document, his notarial commission has already
expired. It is not a defense that no payment has
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2018 GOLDEN NOTES
140
been received. The requirement for the issuance
of the commission as notary public must not be
treated as a mere casual formality. In fact, Juan’s
act also constitutes falsification of public
document.
EXPIRED COMMISSION
A notary public may file a written application
with the Executive Judge for the renewal of his
commission within 45 days before the expiration
thereof. A mark, image or impression of the seal
of the notary public shall be attached in the
application (Sec. 13, first par., Rule III, A.M. No. 02-
8-13-SC).
NOTE: If a person is applying for a commission
for the first time, what he files is a petition and
not an application.
Failure of the notary public to file an
application for the renewal of his commission
Failure to file said application will result in the
deletion of the name of the notary public in the
register of notaries public and may only be
reinstated therein after he is issued a new
commission (Sec. 13, second and third pars., Rule
III, A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC).
NOTE: The Executive Judge shall, upon payment
of the application fee, act on an application for
renewal of a commission within thirty (30) days
from receipt thereof. If the application is denied,
the Executive Judge shall state the reasons
therefor (Sec. 14, Rule III, A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC).
POWERS AND LIMITATIONS
A notary public is empowered to perform the
following notarial acts: [JAO-CAS]
1. Acknowledgments;
2. Oaths and affirmations;
3. Jurats;
4. Signature witnessing;
5. Copy certifications; and
6. Any other act authorized by the rules (Section
1(a), Rule IV, A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC)
NOTARIZATION OF A PRIVATE DOCUMENT
Notarization converts a private document to a
public instrument, making it admissible in
evidence without the necessity of preliminary
 NOTARIAL PRACTICE
proof of its authenticity and due execution. A
notarized document is by law entitled to full
credit upon its face and it is for this reason that
notaries public must observe the basic
requirements in notarizing documents (Dolores
dela cruz, et al. v. Atty. Jose Dimaano, Jr.,
September 12, 2008, A.C. No. 7781).
A notary public should not notarize a document
unless the persons who signed the same are the
very same persons who executed and personally
appeared before him to attest to the contents and
truth of what are stated therein. The presence of
the parties to the deed will enable the notary
public to verify the genuineness of the signature
of the affiant.
Absence of notarization in a deed of sale
The absence of notarization of the Deed of Sale
would not necessarily invalidate the transaction
evidenced therein. Article 1358 of the Civil Code
requires that the form of a contract that transmits
or extinguishes real rights over immovable
property should be in a public document, yet it is
also an accepted rule that the failure to observe
the proper form does not render the transaction
invalid. Thus, it has been uniformly held that the
form required in Article 1358 is not essential to
the validity or enforceability of the transaction,
but required merely for convenience (Leonor
Camcam v. CA; Tigno v. Aquino).
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Refers to an act in which an individual on a single
occasion:
1. Appears in person before the notary public
and presents an integrally complete
instrument or document;
NOTE: A notary public cannot perform a
notarial act over a document that has missing
pages, or that contains blanks that should be
filled-in prior to the notarial act.
2. Is attested to be personally known to the
notary public or identified by the notary
public through competent evidence of
identity as defined by the Rules on Notarial
Practice; and
3. Represents to the notary public that the
signature on the instrument or document
was voluntarily affixed by him for the
purposes stated in the instrument or
document, declares that he has executed the
141
instrument or document as his free and
voluntary act and deed, and, if he acts in a
particular representative capacity, that he
has the authority to sign in that capacity (Sec.
1, Rule II, A.M. 02-8-13-SC).
Q: Cabanilla filed a complaint against Atty.
Cristal-Tenorio with the IBP, alleging that he
never appeared before her when she
notarized the deed of sale of his house, and
that the signatures appearing opposite their
respective names were forgeries. Did Atty.
Cristal-Tenorio fail to comply with the
mandates of the law when she notarized the
deed of sale without the complainant and his
children? Does such failure warrant the
revocation of her notarial commission?
A: YES. Under Section 1(a) of Act 2103, a notary
public taking the acknowledgment in a document
or instrument is mandated to certify that the
person acknowledging the instrument or
document is known to him and that he is the
same person who executed it and acknowledged
that the same is his free act and deed. To
"acknowledge before" means to avow; to own as
genuine, to assert, to admit; and "before" means
in front or preceding in space or ahead of. A party
acknowledging must appear before the notary
public. A notary public should not notarize a
document unless the persons who signed the
same are the very same persons who executed
and personally appeared before the said notary
public to attest to the contents and truth of what
are stated therein. The presence of the parties to
the deed making the acknowledgment will enable
the notary public to verify the genuineness of the
signature of the affiant. A notary public is
enjoined from notarizing a fictitious or spurious
document. The function of a notary public is,
among others, to guard against any illegal deed
(Cabanilla v. Cristal-Tenorio, A.C. No. 6139,
November 11, 2003).
Q: “Before me personally appeared this 30th of
August 2010 Milagros A. Ramirez, who proved
her identity to me through witnesses: 1.
Rosauro S. Balana, Passport UU123456; 1-5-
2010/Baguio City; and 2. Elvira N. Buela,
Passport VV200345; 1-17-2009/Manila. “Both
witnesses, of legal ages, under oath declare
that: Milagros A. Ramirez is personally known
to them; she is the same seller in the foregoing
deed of sale; she does not have any current
identification document nor can she obtain
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 Legal Ethics
one within a reasonable time; and they are
not privy to or are interested in the deed he
signed.” What is the status of such a notarial
acknowledgement? (2011 Bar Question)
A: Valid, since it is a manner of establishing the
identity of the person executing the document.
and clerks of court, are not obliged to administer
oaths or execute certificates save in matters of
official business or in relation to their functions
as such; and with the exception of notaries public,
the officer performing the service in those
matters shall charge no fee, unless specifically
authorized by law (Section 42, Chapter I, Book I,
E.O. No. 292).

AFFIRMATION OR OATH NOTE: P.A.O. Lawyers now have the authority to

Refers to act in which an individual on a single
occasion:
1. Appears in person before the notary public;
2. Is personally known to the public or
identified by the notary through competent
evidence of identity as defined by the Rules;
and
3. Avows under penalty of law, to the whole
truth of the contents of the instrument or
document.
administer oaths, provided it is in connection
with the performance of their duties.
The fiscal or the state prosecutor has the
authority to administer oaths (RA No. 5180, as
amended by P.D. 911).
JURAT
Refers to an act in which an individual on a single
occasion:

Officers allowed to administer oaths 1. Appears in person before the notary public
(Republic Act No. 9406): and presents an instrument or document;
2. Is personally known to the notary public or
1. President;
identified by the notary public through
2. Vice-President;
competent evidence of identity as defined by
3. Members and Secretaries of both Houses of
the Rules on Notarial Practice;
the Congress;
4. Members of the Judiciary; 3. Signs the instrument or document in the
5. Secretaries of Departments; presence of the notary; and
6. Provincial governors and lieutenant-
4. Takes an oath or affirmation before the
governors;
notary public as to such instrument or
7. City mayors;
document (Sec. 6, Rule II, A.M. 02-8-13-SC).
8. Municipal mayors;
9. Bureau directors;
10. Regional directors;
11. Clerk of courts; NOTE: A jurat is not a part of a pleading but
12. Registrars of deeds; merely evidences the fact that the affidavit was
13. Other civilian officers in the public service of properly made. The claim or belief of Atty. Dela
the government of the Philippines whose Rea that the presence of petitioner Gamido was
appointments are vested in the President and not necessary for the jurat because it is not an
are subject to confirmation by the acknowledgment is patently baseless. If this had
Commission on Appointments; been his belief since he was first commissioned as
14. All other constitutional officers; a notary public, then he has been making a
15. PAO lawyers in connection with the mockery of the legal solemnity of an oath in a
performance of duty; and jurat. Notaries public and others authorized by
16. Ombudsman (Sec. 15(8), RA 6770) law to administer oaths or to take
17. Notaries public (Sec. 41, Chapter I, Book I, acknowledgments should not take for granted the
E.O.292) solemn duties appertaining to their offices. Such
duties are dictated by public policy and are
Duty to administer oaths impressed with public interest (Gamido v. Bilibid
Prisons Officials, G.R. No. 114829, March 1, 1995).
Officers authorized to administer oaths, with the
exception of notaries public, municipal judges

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

2018 GOLDEN NOTES
142

Acknowledgment v. Jurat
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Act of one who has
executed a deed, in going
to some competent officer
or court and declaring It to
be his act or deed
The notary public or
officer taking the
acknowledgment shall
certify that the person
acknowledging the
instrument or document is
known to him and he is
the same person who
executed it and
acknowledged that the
same is his free act and
deed.
Two-fold purpose: To
authorize the deed to be
given in evidence without
further proof of its
execution, and, to entitle it
to be recorded.
Where used:
1. To authenticate an
agreement between two or
more persons; or
2. Where the document
contains a disposition of
property.
E.g. The acknowledgment
in a deed of lease of land.
NOTE: In notarial wills, acknowledgment is
required, not merely a jurat.
SIGNATURE WITNESSING
Refers to a notarial act in which an individual on a
single occasion:
NOTARIAL PRACTICE
1. Appears in person before the notary public
and presents an instrument or document;
JURAT 2. Is personally known to the notary public or
That part of an identified by the notary public through
affidavit in which competent evidence of identity as defined by
the notary public or the Rules on Notarial Practice; and
officer certifies that 3. Signs the instrument or document in the
the instrument was presence of the notary public (Sec. 14, Rule II,
sworn to before A. M. No. 02-8-13-SC).
him.
It is not part of a Q: Is a notary public authorized to certify the
pleading but merely affixing of a signature by thumb or other mark
evidences the fact on an instrument or document presented for
that the affidavit notarization? (1995 Bar)
was properly made.
A: YES. It is also within the powers of a notary
public, provided:
1. The thumb or other mark is affixed in the
presence of the notary public and of two (2)
disinterested and unaffected witnesses to the
instrument or document;
Purpose: Gives the 2. Both witnesses sign their own names in
document a legal addition to the thumb or other mark;
character. 3. The notary public writes below the thumb or
other mark: “thumb or other mark affixed by
(name of signatory by mark) in the presence
of (names and addresses of witnesses) and
undersigned notary public”; and
Where used: 4. The notary public notarizes the signature by
1. Affidavits; thumb or other mark through an
2. Certifications; acknowledgment, jurat or signature
3. Whenever the witnessing (Sec. 1(b), Rule IV, A.M. No. 02-8-
person executing 13-SC)
makes a statement
of facts or attests to
the truth of an Q: Is a notary public authorized to sign on
event, under oath. behalf of a person who is physically unable to
sign or make a mark on an instrument or
E.g. An affidavit document? (1995 Bar Question)
subscribed before a
notary public or A: YES. It likewise falls within the powers of a
public official notary public, provided:
authorized for the
purpose. 1. The notary public is directed by the person
unable to sign or make a mark to sign on his
behalf;
2. The signature of the notary public is affixed
in the presence of 2 disinterested and
unaffected witnesses to the instrument or
document;
3. Both witnesses sign their own names;
4. The notary public writes below his signature:
“Signature affixed by notary in the presence
of (names and addresses of person and 2
witnesses)”; and
143 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 Legal Ethics
5. The notary public notarizes his signature by
acknowledgment or jurat(Sec. 1(c), Rule IV,
A.M. 02-8-13-SC).
COPY CERTIFICATION
Refers to a notarial act in which a notary public:
1. Is presented with an instrument or document
that is neither a vital record, a public record,
nor publicly recordable;
2. Copies or supervises the copying of the
instrument or document;
3. Compares the instrument or document with
the copy; and
4. Determines that the copy is accurate and
complete (Sec. 4, Rule II, A.M. 02-8-13-SC).
NOTE: The document copied must be an original
document. It cannot be a copy itself.
NOTARIAL CERTIFICATE
Refers to the part of, or attachment to a notarized
instrument or document that is completed by the
notary public which bears the notary's signature
and seal, and states the facts attested to by the
notary public in a particular notarization as
provided for by the Rules on Notarial Practice
(Sec. 8, Rule II, A. M. No. 02-8-13).
NOTE: “Loose notarial certificate” refers to a
notarial certificate that is attached to a notarized
instrument or document.
LIMITATIONS TO THE PERFORMANCE OF A
NOTARIAL ACT
LIMITATION AS TO THE PLACE
GR: A notary public shall NOT perform a notarial
act outside his regular place of work or business
XPN: On certain exceptional occasions or
situations, a notarial act may be performed at the
request of the parties in the following sites
located within his territorial jurisdiction:
1. Public offices, convention halls, and similar
places where oaths of office may be administered;
2. Public function areas in hotels and similar
places for the signing of instruments or
documents requiring notarization;
3. Hospitals and other medical institutions where
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2018 GOLDEN NOTES
144
a party to an instrument or document is confined
for treatment; and
4. Any place where a party to an instrument or
document requiring notarization is under
detention. (Sec. 2(a), Rule IV, A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC)
NOTE: It is improper for a notary public to
notarize documents in sidewalk since it is now
required that a notary public should maintain a
regular place of work or business within the city
or province where he is commissioned. The SC
evidently wants to eradicate the practice of “fly by
night” notaries public who notarized documents
in “improvised” offices.
LIMITATION AS TO WHO IS THE SIGNATORY
A person shall NOT perform a notarial act if the
person involved as signatory to the instrument or
document is:
a. Not in the notary's presence personally at the
time of the notarization; and (Sec. 2(b)(1),
Rule IV, A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC).
b. Not personally known to the notary public or
otherwise identified by the notary public
through competent evidence of identity as
defined by the Rules on Notarial Practice
(Sec.2(b)(2), Rule IV, A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC)
c. The document is blank or incomplete; (Sec.6
(a) Rule IV, A.M. 02-8-13-SC)
d. An instrument or document is without
appropriate notarial certification (Sec. 6, Rule
IV, A.M. 02-8-13-SC).
Q: Cynthia filed an application for building
permit in connection with the renovation of a
building situated on a lot owned by her
brother Rolando de la Cruz. One of the
documents required in the processing of the
application was an affidavit to be executed by
the lot owner. Since Rolando de la Cruz was a
resident abroad, an affidavit was prepared
wherein it was made to appear that he was a
resident of Leyte. Atty. Francisco Villamor
notarized the purported affidavit. According
to him, a Chinese mestizo appeared in his law
office one time, requesting that his affidavit be
notarized. Said person declared that he was
Rolando de la Cruz. Atty. Villamor then asked
for the production of his residence certificate,
but he said, he did not bother to bring the
same along with him anymore as, he has
already indicated his serial number in the
jurat portion together with the date of issue
 NOTARIAL PRACTICE
and place of issue. Did Atty. Francisco
Villamor commit a violation of notarial law?
A: YES. It is the duty of the notarial officer to
demand that the document presented to him for
notarization should be signed in his presence. By
his admission, the affidavit was already signed by
the purported affiant at the time it was presented
to him for notarization. Atty. Villamor thus failed
to heed his duty as a notary public to demand that
the document for notarization be signed in his
presence (Traya Jr. v. Villamor, A.C. No. 4595,
February 6, 2004).
Q: During their lifetime, the Spouses
Villanueva acquired several parcels of land.
They were survived by their 5 children:
Simeona, Susana, Maria, Alfonso, and
Florencia. Alfonso executed an Affidavit of
Adjudication stating that as “the only
surviving son and sole heir” of the spouses, he
was adjudicating himself a parcel of land.
Thereafter, he executed a Deed of Absolute
Sale, conveying the property to Adriano
Villanueva. Atty. Salud Beradio appeared as
notary public on both the affidavit of
adjudication and the deed of sale. Atty.
Beradio knew of the falsity of Alfonso’s
statement. Florencia and descendants of the
other children of the spouses were still alive
at the time of execution of both documents.
Was there a failure to discharge properly the
duties of a notary public?
A: YES. Atty. Beradio’s conduct breached the
Code of Professional Responsibility, which
requires lawyers to obey the laws of the land and
promote respect for the law and legal processes
as well as Rule 1.01 of the Code which proscribes
lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest,
immoral, or deceitful conduct. She herself
admitted that she knew of the falsity of Alfonso’s
statement that he was the “sole heir” of the
spouses. She therefore notarized a document
while fully aware that it contained a material
falsehood. The affidavit of adjudication is
premised on this very assertion. By this
instrument, Alfonso claimed a portion of his
parents’ estate all to himself, to the exclusion of
his co-heirs. Shortly afterwards, Atty. Beradio
notarized the deed of sale, knowing that the deed
took basis from the unlawful affidavit of
adjudication (Heirs of the Late Spouses Lucas v
.Atty. Beradio, A.C. No. 6270, January 22, 2007).
145
NOTE: If the notary public admitted that he has
personal knowledge of a false statement
contained in the instrument to be notarized yet
proceeded to affix his or her notarial seal on it,
the court must not hesitate to discipline the
notary public accordingly as the circumstances of
the case may dictate. Otherwise, the integrity and
sanctity of the notarization process may be
undermined and public confidence on notarial
documents diminished (Ibid.).
DISQUALIFICATION OF A NOTARY PUBLIC TO
PERFORM A NOTARIAL ACT
A notary public is disqualified to perform notarial
act when he:
1. Is a party to the instrument or document that
is to be notarized;
NOTE: The function would be defeated if the
notary public is one of the signatories to the
instrument. For then, he would be interested
in sustaining the validity thereof as it directly
involves himself and the validity of his own
act. It would place him in an inconsistent
position, and the very purpose of the
acknowledgment, which is to minimize fraud,
would be thwarted (Villarin v. Sabate, A.C. No.
3224, February 9, 2000).
2. Will receive, as a direct or indirect result, any
commission, fee, advantage, right, title,
interest, cash, property, or other
consideration, except as provided by the
Rules on Notarial Practice and by law; or
3. Is a spouse, common-law partner, ancestor,
descendant, or relative by affinity or
consanguinity of the principal within the
fourth civil degree (Sec. 3, Rule IV, A.M. No.
02-8-13-SC).
Q: On March 2012, Kintanar’s wife,
Evangeline, filed a complaint against Mabini
among other persons, for reconveyance,
annulment of title, damages with prayer for
preliminary injunction or restraining order.
Attached to said complaint was an Affidavit of
Loss Owner’s Duplicate Copy of Title executed
by Evangeline and notarized by Kintanar on
April 25, 2002. According to Mabini, Kintanar
knew that he was not authorized to notarize a
document of his wife, or any of his relative
within the fourth civil degree, whether by
affinity or consanguinity. Kintanar countered
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 Legal Ethics
that the subject Affidavit purportedly
executed by his wife appeared to have been
notarized on April 25, 2002; as such, it was
governed by Revised Administrative Code of
1917. Did Kintanar commit misconduct by
notarizing his wife’s affidavit of loss in 2002?
A: NO. A lawyer cannot be held liable for a
violation of his duties as Notary Public when the
law in effect at the time of his complained act
does not provide any prohibition to the same, as
in the case at bench. Prior to 1917, governing law
for notaries public in the Philippines was the
Spanish Notarial Law of 1889. However, the law
governing Notarial Practice is changed with the
passage of the January 3, 1916 Revised
Administrative Code, which took effect in 1917. In
2004, the Revised Rules on Notarial Practice was
passed by the Supreme Court. Considering the
foregoing, there is indeed no basis to hold Atty.
Kintanar liable for misconduct for notarizing his
wife’s Affidavit in 2002 (Mabini v. Kintanar, A.C.
9512, Feb 5, 2018).
INSTANCES WHEN NOTARY PUBLIC MAY
REFUSE TO NOTARIZE
1. The notary knows or has good reason to
believe that the notarial act or transaction is
unlawful or immoral;
2. The signatory shows a demeanor which
engenders in the mind of the notary public
reasonable doubt as to the former's
knowledge of the consequences of the
transaction requiring a notarial act;
3. In the notary's judgment, the signatory is not
acting of his or her own free will (Sec.4, Rule
V, A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC); or
4. If the document or instrument to be
notarized is considered as an improper
document by the Rules on Notarial Practice.
Example of an “Improper instrument”
1. A blank or incomplete instrument or
document; or
2. An instrument or document without
appropriate notarial certification (Sec. 6, Rule V,
A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC).
Q: The Office of the Ombudsman finds it
unsettling that the Deed of Partition
submitted before the DAR was notarized by
Atty. Robellito B. Diuyan on 23 July 2003,
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2018 GOLDEN NOTES
146
when one of the signatories therein, Alejandro
F. Camilo, had earlier died on 23 August 2001.
Atty. Diuyan admitted notarizing the Deed of
Partition in his capacity as District Public
Attorney of the Public Attorney’s Office. He
claimed that the signature as Notary Public in
that Deed of Partition was indeed his. He
added that Eight (8) persons appeared before
him with the document deed of partition
prepared by them. Atty. Diuyan asked them
one by one if the document is true and correct
and with their Community Tax Certificates,
they answered in the affirmative and after
being satisfied with their answer Atty. Diuyan
notarized the document for free as they are
considered as indigents. Should Atty. Diuyan
be held liable for notarizing a Deed of
Partition on the basis of the affiants’ CTCs?
A: NO. A lawyer cannot be held liable for a
violation of his duties as Notary Public when the
law in effect at the time of his complained act
does not provide any prohibition, to the same, as
in the case at bench. Similarly, Atty. Diuyan
notarized the Deed of Partition on July 23, 2003,
or prior to the effectivity of the 2004 Rules on
Notarial Practice, of which he is being held
accountable by the IBP. However, when the Deed
was notarized on July 23, 2003, the applicable
law was the notarial law under Title IV, Chapter
11, Article VII of the Revised Administrative Code,
Section 251 of which only required the
presentation of the CTCs (In re: Decision dated
September 26, 2012 in OMB-M-A-10-023-A etc.
against Atty. Robelito Diuyan, A.C. No. 9676, Apr. 2,
2018).
NOTARIAL REGISTER
Notarial register
It refers to a permanently bound book with
numbered pages containing a chronological
record of notarial acts performed by a notary
public (Sec 1, [a] par. 1, Rule VI, A.M. No. 02-8-13-
SC)
Duty of Notary Public
A notary public shall keep, maintain, protect and
provide for lawful inspection as provided in these
Rules, a chronological official notarial register of
notarial acts consisting of a permanently bound
book with numbered pages.
 NOTARIAL PRACTICE
The register shall be kept in books to be
furnished by the Solicitor General to any notary
public upon request and upon payment of the
cost thereof. The register shall be duly paged, and
on the first page, the Solicitor General shall certify
the number of pages of which the book consists
(Sec. 1(a), Rule VI, A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC).
NOTE: Failure of the notary to make the proper
entry or entries in his notarial register touching
his notarial acts in the manner required by law is
a ground for revocation of his commission
(Father Ranhilio C. Aquino Et. Al., v. Atty. Edwin
Pascua, A.C. No. 5095, November 28, 2007, En
Banc).
Notary public is personally accountable for all
entries in his notarial register. They cannot be
relieved of responsibility for the violation of the
aforesaid sections by passing the buck to their
secretaries (Lingan v. Atty. Calibaquib, A.C. No.
5377, June 15, 2006).
Effect of failure to submit Report
Notary’s negligence in failing to submit his
notarial report will not affect the admissibility as
evidence of an instrument he notarized (Tirol,
2010). Parties who appear before a notary public
to have their documents notarized should not be
expected to follow up on the submission of the
notarial reports. They should not be made to
suffer the consequences of the negligence of the
Notary Public in following the procedures
prescribed by the Notarial Law (Destreza v. Atty.
Riñoza-Plazo, G.R. No. 176863, October 30, 2009).
Signing or affixing a thumbmark in the
notarial register
At the time of notarization, the notary's notarial
register shall be signed or a thumb or other mark
affixed by each:
1. Principal;
2. Credible witness swearing or affirming to the
identity of a principal; and
3. Witness to a signature by thumb or other
mark, or to a signing by the notary public on
behalf of a person physically unable to sign
(Sec. 3, Rule VI, A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC).
Inspection of a notarial register by private
persons
1. The inspection is made in the notary’s
presence;
147
2. During regular business hours;
3. The person's identity is personally known to
the notary public or proven through
competent evidence of identity as defined in
these Rules;
4. The person affixes a signature and thumb or
other mark or other recognized identifier, in
the notarial register in a separate, dated
entry;
5. The person specifies the month, year, type of
instrument or document, and name of the
principal in the notarial act or acts sought;
and
6. The person is shown only the entry or entries
specified by him (Sec.4 (a), Rule VI, A.M. No.
02-8-13-SC).
Examination of notarial register by law
enforcement officer
The notarial register may be examined by a law
enforcement officer in the course of an official
investigation or by virtue of a court order (Sec.
4(b), Rule VI, A. M. No. 02-8-13-SC).
LOSS, DESTRUCTION and DAMAGE OF
NOTARIAL REGISTER
1. In case the notarial register is stolen, lost,
destroyed, damaged, or otherwise rendered
unusable or illegible as a record of notarial
acts, the notary public shall, within ten (10)
days after informing the appropriate law
enforcement agency in the case of theft or
vandalism, notify the Executive Judge by any
means providing a proper receipt or
acknowledgment, including registered mail
and also provide a copy or number of any
pertinent police report.
2. Upon revocation or expiration of a notarial
commission, or death of the notary public,
the notarial register and notarial records
shall immediately be delivered to the office of
the Executive Judge (Sec. 5, Rule VI, A. M. No.
02-8-13-SC).
The notary public may refuse the request of
inspection for register of deeds
If the notary public has a reasonable ground to
believe that a person has a criminal intent or
wrongful motive in requesting information from
the notarial register, the notary shall deny access
to any entry or entries therein (Sec. 4(c), Rule VI,
A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC).
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 Legal Ethics
JURISDICTION OF NOTARY PUBLIC AND PLACE
OF NOTARIZATION
A notary public may perform notarial acts in any
place within the territorial jurisdiction of the
commissioning court. Outside the place of his
commission, a notary public is bereft of power to
perform any notarial act.
Under the Notarial Law, the jurisdiction of a
notary public is co-extensive with the province
for which he was commissioned; and for the
notary public in the city of Manila, the jurisdiction
is co-extensive with said city. Circular 8 of 1985,
however, clarified further that the notary public
may be commissioned for the same term only by
one court within the Metro Manila region.
“Regular place of work or business” of a
notary public meaning
The regular place of work or business refers to a
stationary office in the city or province wherein
the notary public renders legal and notarial
services (Sec. 11, Rule II, 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice).
Q: Atty. Sabungero obtained a notarial
commission. One Sunday, while he was at the
cockpit, a person approached him with an
affidavit that needed to be notarized. Atty.
Sabungero immediately pulled out from his
pocket his small notarial seal, and notarized
the document. Was the affidavit validly
notarized? (2009 Bar)
A: Section 2, Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice provides that a Notary Public shall not
perform a notarial act outside his regular place of
work, except in few exceptional occasions or
situations, at the request of the parties.
Notarizing in a cockpit is not one of such
exceptions. The prohibition is aimed to eliminate
the practice of ambulatory notarization. However,
assuming that the cockpit is within his notarial
jurisdiction, the notarization may be valid but the
notary public should be disciplined.
REVOCATION OF COMMISSION
Who may revoke the notarial commission
1. The Executive Judge of the RTC who issued
the commission on any ground on which an
application for commission may be denied
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2018 GOLDEN NOTES
148
(Sec. 1, Rule XI, A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC); or
2. By the Supreme Court itself in the exercise of
its general supervisory powers over lawyer.
GROUNDS FOR REVOCATION
The executive Judge shall revoke a notarial
commission for any ground on which an
application for a commission may be denied. In
addition, the Executive Judge may revoke the
commission of, or impose appropriate
administrative sanctions upon, any notary public
who:
1. Fails to keep a notarial register;
2. Fails to make the proper entry or entries in
his notarial register concerning his notarial
acts;
3. Fails to send the copy of the entries to the
Executive Judge within the first ten (10) days
of the month following;
4. Fails to affix to acknowledgments the date of
expiration of his commission;
5. Fails to submit his notarial register, when
filled, to the Executive Judge;
6. Fails to make his report, within a reasonable
time, to the Executive Judge concerning the
performance of his duties, as may be required
by the judge;
7. Fails to require the presence of a principal at
the time of the notarial act;
NOTE: "Principal" refers to a person
appearing before the notary public whose
act is the subject of notarization.
8. Fails to identify a principal on the basis of
personal knowledge or competent evidence;
9. Executes a false or incomplete certificate
under Section 5, Rule IV;
10. Knowingly performs or fails to perform any
other act prohibited or mandated by these
Rules; and
11. Commits any other dereliction or act which in
the judgment of the Executive Judge
constitutes good cause for revocation of
commission or imposition of administrative
sanction (Sec. 1, Rule XI, 2004 Rules on
Notarial Practice).
NOTE: Functions of notary public – violations:
suspension as notary not for the practice of law
(Villarin v. Sabate, A.C. No. 3224, February 9,
2000).
 NOTARIAL PRACTICE
COMPETENT EVIDENCE OF IDENTITY
Competent evidence of identity refers to the
identification of an individual based on the
following:
1. At least one current identification document
issued by an official agency bearing the
photograph and signature of the individual
such as but not limited to:
a. Passport
b. Driver's license
c. PRC
d. NBI clearance
e. Police clearance
f. Postal ID
g. Voter's ID
h. Any other government issued ID (Sec 12
of Rule 2, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice,
as amended by A.M. No.02-8-13-SC dated
February 19, 2008).
2. The oath or affirmation of one credible
witness not privy to the instrument,
document or transaction who is personally
known to the notary public and who
personally knows the individual, or of two
credible witnesses neither of whom is privy
to the instrument, document or transaction
who each personally knows the individual
and shows to the notary public documentary
identification (Amendment to Sec. 12 (a), Rule
II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice,
February 19, 2008).
NOTE: Competent evidence of identity is not
required in cases where the affiant is personally
known to the Notary Public (Amora, Jr. v. Comelec,
G.R. No.192280, January 25, 2011).
Q: Atty. Regino Tamabago notarized a last will
and testament under which the decedent
supposedly bequeathed his entire estate to his
wife, save for a parcel of land which he
devised to Vicente Lee, Jr. and Elena Lee, half
siblings of Manuel Lee, the complainant. The
will was purportedly executed and
acknowledged before respondent on June 30,
1965. However, the residence certificate of
the testator noted in the acknowledgment of
the will was dated January 5, 1962. There is
also absence of notation of the residence
certificates of the purported witnesses. Did
Atty. Regino Tamabago violate any of the
duties of a notary public?
149
A: Atty. Tamabago, as notary public, evidently
failed in the performance of the elementary
duties of his office. There is absence of a notation
of the residence certificates of the notarial
witnesses in the will in the acknowledgment.
Further, the notation of the testator’s old
residence certificate in the same
acknowledgment was a clear breach of the law.
The Notarial Law then in force required the
exhibition of the residence certificate upon
notarization of a document or instrument. By
having allowed decedent to exhibit an expired
residence certificate, Atty. Tamabago failed to
comply with the requirements of the old Notarial
Law. As much could be said of his failure to
demand the exhibition of the residence
certificates of notarial witnesses. Defects in the
observance of the solemnities prescribed by law
render the entire will invalid (Manuel Lee v. Atty.
Regino Tamabago, A.C. No. 5281, February 12,
2008).
SANCTIONS
Punishable acts under the 2004 Rules on
Notarial Practice
The Executive Judge shall cause the prosecution
of any person who knowingly:
1. Acts or otherwise impersonates a notary
public;
2. Obtains, conceals, defaces, or destroys the
seal, notarial register, or official records of a
notary public; and
3. Solicits, coerces, or in any way influences a
notary public to commit official misconduct
(Sec. 1, Rule XII, Rule on Notarial Practice).
NOTE: Notarizing documents without the
requisite commission therefore constitutes
malpractice, if not the crime of falsification of
public documents (St. Louis Laboratory High
School Faculty And Staff V. Dela Cruz, A.C. No.
6010. August 28, 2006).
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 Legal Ethics
JUDICIAL ETHICS the other office (Luna v. Rodriguez and De Los
Angeles, G.R. No. L-13744, November 29, 1918).

Judicial ethics Proper judicial deportment

The branch of moral science which treats of the
right and proper conduct to be observed by all
judges in trying and deciding controversies
brought before them for adjudication and which
conduct must be demonstrative of impartiality,
integrity, competence, independence and
freedom from improprieties. This freedom from
improprieties must be observed in both the
public and private life of a judge who is the visible
representation of the law (Pineda, 2009)
1. Attitude toward counsel – He must be
courteous especially to the young and
inexperienced, should not interrupt in
their arguments except to clarify his
minds as to their positions, must not be
tempted to an unnecessary display of
learning or premature judgment, may
criticize and correct unprofessional
conduct of a lawyer but not in an insulting
manner.

Judge 2. Attitude toward litigants and witnesses

– He must be considerate, courteous and
A judge is a public officer who, by virtue of his civil, must not utter intemperate language
office, is clothed with judicial authority and is during the hearing of a case.
lawfully appointed to decide litigated questions in
accordance with law (People v. Manantan, G.R. No. Proper judicial conduct
L-14129, August 30, 1962).
Judges and justices must conduct themselves
NOTE: This refers to persons only. There may be as to be beyond reproach and suspicion and
a judge without a court. free from appearance of impropriety in their
personal behavior, not only in the discharge of
official duties but also in their everyday lives.
De jure judge v. De facto judge
SOURCES
De Jure judge De Facto judge
One who exercises the An officer who is not Two main sources:
office of a judge as a fully vested with all the
matter of right, fully powers and duties a. New Code of Judicial Conduct for the
vested with all the conceded to judges but, Philippine Judiciary (NCJC); and
powers and functions one who exercises the b. Code of Judicial Conduct (CJC).
conceded to him office of judge under
under the law (Luna v. some color of right. He Other sources of Judicial Ethics:
Rodriguez, G.R. No. L- has the reputation of 1. 1987 Constitution particularly Article VIII
13744, November 29, the officer he assumes (Judicial Department), Article XI
1918). to be, yet he has some (Accountability of Public Officers), and
defect in his right to Article III (Bill of Rights);
exercise judicial
2. New Civil Code (Articles 9, 20, 27, 32, 35,
functions at the
particular time (Luna v. 739, 1491, 2005, 2025 to 2035, and 2046);
Rodriguez, G.R. No. L- 3. Rules of Court (Rule 71, 135, 137, 139-B, and
13744, November 29, 140);
1918). 4. Revised Penal Code (Articles 204, 205, 206,
and 207);
NOTE: There cannot be a de facto judge when 5. Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA
there is a de jure judge in the actual performance
3019)
of the duties of the office. Moreover, one cannot
be actually acting under any color of right when 6. Canons of Judicial Ethics (Admin. Order No.
he has ceased to be a judge and has actually 162)
vacated the office by the acceptance of another 7. Code of Professional Responsibility;
office and by actually entering upon the duties of

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

2018 GOLDEN NOTES
150
 JUDICIAL ETHICS
8. Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980 (BP in the moral authority and integrity of the
129) judiciary is of utmost importance in a modern
9. Supreme Court decisions; democratic society; and that it is essential that
judges, individually and collectively, respect and
10. Foreign decisions on judicial ethics which are
honor judicial office as a public trust and strive to
relevant and persuasive; enhance and maintain confidence in the judicial
11. Opinions of Authorities in Legal and Judicial system.
Ethics;
12. Other Statutes; and The purpose of the New Code of Judicial Conduct
13. Administrative Orders and Supreme Court for the Philippine Judiciary is to update and
Circulars (Pineda, 2009). correlate the code of judicial conduct and canons
of judicial ethics adopted for the Philippines, and
New Code of Judicial Conduct for the also to stress the Philippines’ solidarity with the
Philippine Judiciary v. Code of Judicial universal clamor for a universal code of judicial
Conduct ethics (See aforementioned "four Ins" and "four
ACID" problems by Chief Justice Artemio V.
NCJC CJC Panganiban).
Focuses on the Concerned primarily
NOTE: The New Code contains 6 Canons and 44
institutional and with the institutional
Rules.
personal independence independence of the
of judicial officers judiciary.
The six (6) canons under the New Code of
Contains eight norms of Contained three
Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary
conduct that judges guidelines explaining
“shall follow” what judges “should
1. Independence
do”
2. Integrity
* Canon 1 of the 1989
3. Impartiality
Code created a weaker
4. Propriety
mandate.
5. Equality
6. Competence and Diligence

Duties of a magistrate that will bolster the

THE NEW CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT
public’s confidence in the judicial system
FOR THE PHILIPPINE JUDICIARY
(BANGALORE DRAFT)
1. Duty to be above reproach and to appear
(A.M. NO. 03-05-01)
above reproach (NCJC, Sec.1, Canon 2)
2. Duty to be impartial (NCJC, Canon 3)
The New Code of Judicial Conduct (NCJC) for the
3. Duty to avoid improprieties and appearance
Philippine Judiciary took effect on June 1, 2004
of improprieties (NCJC, Sec. 1, Canon 4)
supersedes the Canons of Judicial Ethics and the
4. Duty of financial transparency and duty to
Code of Judicial Conduct. Provided, however, that
avoid financial conflicts of interest (NCJC, Sec.
in case of deficiency or absence of specific
7, Canon 4)
provisions in the NCJC, the Canons of Judicial
5. Duty to be efficient, fair and prompt (NCJC,
Ethics and Code of Judicial Conduct shall be
Sec. 5, Canon 6)
applicable in a suppletory character (2007,
6. Duty to be free from favor, bias, or prejudice
2009 Bar).
(NCJC, Sec. 1, Canon 3).
This was adopted from the universal declaration
CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT
of standards for ethical conduct embodied in the
(1989)
Bangalore Draft as revised at the Round Table
Conference of Chief Justices at the Hague.
Applicability
This code applies suppletorily to the Bangalore
It is founded upon a universal recognition that a
Draft.
competent, independent and impartial judiciary
is essential if the courts are to fulfill their role in CANON 1
upholding constitutionalism and the rule of law; A JUDGE SHOULD UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY
that public confidence in the judicial system and AND INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY.

151 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 Legal Ethics
RULE 1.01, CANON 1
A judge should be the embodiment of
competence, integrity and independence.
NOTE: Failure to decide cases and other matters
within the reglementary period constitutes gross
inefficiency and warrants the imposition of
administrative sanction against the erring
magistrate. Judges must decide cases and resolve
matters with dispatch because any delay in the
administration of justice deprives litigants of
their right to a speedy disposition of their case
and undermines the people’s faith in the
judiciary. Indeed, justice delayed is justice denied
(Angelia v. Grageda, A.M. No. RTJ-10-2220,
February 7, 2011).
RULE 1.02, CANON 1
A judge should administer justice impartially
and without delay.
RULE 1.03, CANON 1
A judge should be vigilant against any
attempt to subvert the independence of the
judiciary and resist any pressure from
whatever source.
CANON 2
A JUDGE SHOULD AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND
THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL
ACTIVITES.
RULE 2.01, CANON 2
A judge should so behave at all times as to
promote public confidence in the integrity
and impartiality of the judiciary.
Q: Judge Canoy was charged with several
counts of gross ignorance of the law and/or
procedures, grave abuse of authority, and
appearance of impropriety (CJC, Canon 2) for
granting bail to Melgazo, the accused in a
criminal case, without any application or
petition for the grant of bail filed before his
court or any court. Also, he did not require
Melgazo to sign a written undertaking
containing the conditions of the bail under
Sec. 2, Rule 114 to be complied with by
Melgazo. Thus, Judge Canoy ordered the police
escorts to release Melgazo without any
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2018 GOLDEN NOTES
152
written order of release. Should respondent
Judge Canoy be held administratively liable?
A: YES. Granting of bail without any application
or petition to grant bail is a clear deviation from
the procedure laid down in Sec. 17 of Rule 114. As
regards the insistence of Judge Canoy that such
may be considered as “constructive bail,” there is
no such species of bail under the Rules. Despite
the noblest of reasons, the Rules of Court may not
be ignored at will and at random to the prejudice
of the rights of another. Rules of procedure are
intended to ensure the orderly administration of
justice and the protection of substantive rights in
judicial and extrajudicial proceedings. In this
case, the reason of Judge Canoy is hardly
persuasive enough to disregard the Rules (Pantilo
III v. Canoy, A.M. No. RTJ-11-2262, February 9,
2011).
RULE 2.02, CANON 2
A judge should not seek publicity for personal
vainglory.
RULE 2.03, CANON 2
A judge shall not allow family, social, or other
relationships to influence judicial conduct or
judgment. The prestige of judicial office shall
not be used or lent to advance the private
interests of others, nor convey or permit
others to convey the impression that they are
in special position to influence the judge.
Q: Judge Belen filed a complaint for Estafa
against complainant’s father. Judge Belen
started harassing and threatening the
complainant by filing of several cases against
the latter. He also wrote using his personal
stationery several letters addressed to certain
local government authorities and employees
requesting information on complainant’s
piggery and poultry business and advising
them of the alleged violations by the
complainant of the National Building Code
and certain environmental laws. An
administrative complaint was filed against the
judge for violation of the New Code of Judicial
Conduct. Is the judge liable?
A: YES. While the use of the title is an official
designation as well as an honor that an
incumbent has earned, a line still has to be drawn
based on the circumstances of the use of the
appellation. While the title can be used for social
 JUDICIAL ETHICS
and other identification purposes, it cannot be
used with the intent to use the prestige of his
judicial office to gainfully advance his personal,
family or other pecuniary interests. Nor can the
prestige of a judicial office be used or lent to
advance the private interests of others, or to
convey or permit others to convey the impression
that they are in a special position to influence the
judge. To do any of these is to cross into the
prohibited field of impropriety (Belen v. Belen,
A.M. No. RTJ-08-2139, August 9, 2010).
Q: Benoncillo claims that the judge called her
and her counsel to a meeting in his chambers.
They agreed to the meeting but they did not
proceed when they learned that the
intervenors were joining them. Subsequent to
the judge’s meeting with the intervenors, he
issued an Order which rescinded his previous
Order. Thereafter, he denied the
complainant’s motion for reconsideration.
In his Comment, the judge claimed that the
complainant was motivated by her “insatiable
greed to have exclusive control and
possession pending trial of the case of all the
properties of the Underworld Divers Panglao,
Inc. of Paul John Belot.” He added that the
“complainant is only a live-in partner of Belot
with no specific address which was branded
repeatedly by Belot as a ‘prostitute’ and ‘only
after his money.’ He also averred that the
complainant “masterminded all the legal
manipulations to get possession of Belot.’ Is
he administratively liable?
A: YES. First, the respondent judge acted
inappropriately in calling the complainant and
the intervenors to a meeting inside his chambers.
This act of respondent judge would logically
create an impression to complainant that the
meeting of the judge with the intervenors had
turned his views around towards issuing a
revocation of the October 2, 2007 Order.
Moreover, respondent judge used derogatory and
irrelevant language in relation to the
complainant. His comments besmirched the
character of complainant and his accusations are
unfair and unwarranted. His depiction of
complainant is also inconsistent with the
Temporary Protection Order he issued in her
favor as a victim of domestic violence. Verily,
Judge Amila should be more circumspect in his
language (Benancillo v. Judge Amila, A.M. No. RTJ-
082149, March 9, 2011).
153
RULE 2.04, CANON 2
A judge should refrain from influencing in
any manner the outcome of litigation or
dispute pending before another court or
administrative agency.
ADJUDICATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES
CANON 3
A JUDGE SHOULD PERFOM OFFICIAL
DUTIES HONESTLY, AND WITH
IMPARTIALITY AND DILIGENCE.
RULE 3.01, CANON 3
A judge shall be faithful to the law and
maintain professional competence.
A judge may not be administratively sanctioned
from mere errors of judgment in the absence of
showing of any bad faith, fraud, malice, gross
ignorance, corrupt purpose, or a deliberate intent
to do an injustice on his or her part. Judicial
officers cannot be subjected to administrative
disciplinary actions for their performance of duty
in good faith. (Atoc v. Camello et al., I.P.I. No. 16-
241-CA-J, November 29, 2016)
Indeed, while a judge may not be held liable for
gross ignorance of the law for every erroneous
order that he renders, this does not mean that a
judge need not observe due care in the
performance of his/her official functions. When a
basic principle of law is involved and when an
error is so gross and patent, error can produce an
inference of bad faith, making the judge liable for
gross ignorance of the law. (Lorenzana v. Judge
Austria, A.M. No. RTJ-09-2200, April 2, 2014)
Q: Conquilla was charged with Direct Assault
after respondent Judge B conducted a
preliminary investigation and found probable
cause to hold the complainant for trial for the
said crime. Complainant then filed an
administrative complaint, alleging that under
A.M. No. 05-08-[2]6-SC, first level court judges
no longer have the authority to conduct
preliminary investigations. Is the respondent
judge guilty of gross ignorance of the law?
A: YES. When a law or a rule is basic, judges owe
it to their office to simply apply the law. Anything
less is gross ignorance of the law. Judges should
exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 Legal Ethics
with the statutes and procedural rules, and
should be diligent in keeping abreast with
developments in law and jurisprudence.
It was, therefore, incumbent upon respondent
judge to forward the records of the case to the
Office of the Provincial Prosecutor for
preliminary investigation, instead of conducting
the preliminary investigation himself, upon
amendment of the law stripping the power of first
level court judges to conduct preliminary
investigation (Conquilla v. Bernando, A.M. No.MTJ-
09-1737, February 9, 2011).
RULE 3.02, CANON 3
In every case, a judge shall endeavor diligently
to ascertain the facts and the applicable law
unswayed by partisan interests, public opinion
or fear of criticism.
A judge is expected to decide cases only on the
basis of the applicable law on the matter, not on
any other extraneous factors, such as public
opinion, personal convictions and partisan
interests (Lapena, 2009). )
RULE 3.03, CANON 3
A judge shall maintain order and proper
decorum in the court.
RULE 3.04, CANON 3
A judge should be patient, attentive, and
courteous to lawyers, especially the
inexperienced, to litigants, witnesses, and
others appearing before the court.
A judge should avoid unconsciously falling
into the attitude of mind that the litigants are
made for the courts, instead of the courts for
the litigants.
Q: How would you characterize the
relationship between the judge and a lawyer?
Explain. (1996 Bar)
A: The Code of Professional Responsibility
requires lawyers to observe and maintain respect
for judicial officers (Canon 11, CPR). On the other
hand, the Code of Judicial Conduct requires
judges to be patient, attentive and courteous to
lawyers (Rule 3.03, CJC). In a word, lawyers and
judges owe each other mutual respect and
courtesy.
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2018 GOLDEN NOTES
154
RULE 3.05, CANON 3
A judge shall dispose of the court’s business
promptly and decide cases within the required
periods.
Article VIII, Section 15(1) of the 1987
Constitution mandates lower court judges to
decide a case within the reglementary period of
90 days. The Code of Judicial Conduct under Rule
3.05 of Canon 3 likewise enunciates that judges
should administer justice without delay and
directs every judge to dispose of the court’s
business promptly within the period prescribed
by law. Rules prescribing the time within which
certain acts must be done are indispensable to
prevent needless delays in the orderly and
speedy disposition of cases. Thus, the 90-day
period is mandatory. (Re: Cases Submitted for
Decision Before Hon. Teresito A. Andoy, A.M. No.
09-9-163-MTC, May 6, 2010)
Prompt disposition of cases is attained basically
through the efficiency and dedication to duty of
judges. If judges do not possess those traits, delay
in the disposition of cases is inevitable to the
prejudice of the litigants. Accordingly, judges
should be imbued with a high sense of duty and
responsibility in the discharge of their obligation
to administer justice promptly (Garado v.
Gutierrez-Torres, A.M. No. MTJ-11-1778, June 5,
2013).
Justice delayed is often justice denied, and delay
in the disposition of the cases erodes the faith and
confidence of the people in the judiciary, lowers
its standard and brings it into disrepute.
Q: The present administrative matter arose
from the judicial audit conducted on Br. 20 of
the RTC of CDO then presided by Judge
Macabaya. The audit team found that out of
the 573 cases examined by it (1) 69 cases
were submitted for decision but have yet to be
decided despite the lapse of the 90-day
period; (2) 33 cases with pending incidents
were not yet resolved despite the lapse of the
reglementary period to resolve them; and (3)
155 cases were dormant and unacted upon for
a considerable length of time. Is Judge
Macabaya guilty of gross misconduct?
A: YES. The office of the judge exacts nothing less
than faithful observance of the Constitution and
the law in the discharge of official duties. Section
15 (1), Article VIII of the Constitution mandates
 JUDICIAL ETHICS
that cases or matters filed with the lower courts
must be decided or resolved within three months
from the date they are submitted for decision or
resolution. Moreover, Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the
Code of Judicial Conduct directs judges to
'dispose of the court's business promptly and
decide cases within the required periods.' Judges
must closely adhere to the Code of Judicial
Conduct in order to preserve the integrity,
competence, and independence of the judiciary
and make the administration of justice more
efficient. Failure to decide cases within the
reglementary period, without strong and
justifiable reason, constitutes gross inefficiency
warranting the imposition of administrative
sanction on the defaulting judge (Re: Judicial
Audit Conducted in the RTC, Branch 20, Cagayan
De Oro City, Misamis Oriental, A.M. No. 14-11-350-
RTC, Dec. 5, 2017).
RULE 3.06, CANON 3
While a judge may, to promote justice, prevent
waste of time or clear up some obscurity,
properly intervene in the presentation of
evidence during the trial, it should always be
borne in mind that undue interference may
prevent the proper presentation of the cause
or the ascertainment of truth.
RULE 3.07, CANON 3
A judge should abstain from making public
comments on any pending or impending case
and should require similar restraint on the
part of court personnel.
ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES
RULE 3.08, CANON 3
A judge should diligently discharge
administrative responsibilities, maintain
professional competence in court
management, and facilitate the performance
of the administrative functions or other
judges and court personnel.
RULE 3.09, CANON 3
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.
RULE 3.10, CANON 3
155
A judge should take or initiate appropriate
disciplinary measures against lawyers or
court personnel for unprofessional conduct
of which the judge may have become aware.
RULE 3.11, CANON 3
A judge should appoint commissioners,
receivers, trustees, guardians,
administrators and others strictly on the
basis of merit and qualifications, avoiding
nepotism, and favoritism. Unless otherwise
allowed by law, the same criteria should be
observed in recommending appointment of
court personnel. Where the payment of
compensation is allowed, it should be
reasonable and commensurate with the fair
value of services rendered.
DISQUALIFICATION
Q: In a hearing before the Court of Tax
Appeals, Atty. G was invited to appear as
amicus curiae. One of the Judges hearing the
tax case is the father of Atty. G. The counsel for
the respondent moved for the inhibition of the
judge in view of the father-son relationship. Is
there merit to the motion? Decide. (1996 Bar)
A: NO, there is no merit to the motion. Rule 3.12
of the CJC provides that “a judge should take no
part where the judge’s impartiality might
reasonably be questioned. Among the instances
for the disqualification of a judge is that he is
related to a party litigant within the sixth degree
or to counsel within the fourth degree of
consanguinity or affinity. But this refers to
counsel of the parties. As amicus, he represents
no party to the case. There is, therefore, no
ground to fear the loss of the judge’s impartiality
in this case if his son is appointed amicus curiae.
NOTE: A judge’s close friendship with a person
who is a party to his case does not render
him/her guilty of violating any canon of judicial
ethics as long as his friendly relations did not
influence his official conduct as a judge.
However, it would have been more prudent if
the judge concerned avoided hearing the cases
where his friend was a party because their
close friendship could reasonably tend to raise
suspicion that the former’s social relationship
would be an element in his determination of
the case.
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 Legal Ethics
RULE 3.12, CANON 3
A judge should take no part in a proceeding
where the judge’s impartiality might
reasonably be questioned.
These cases include among others,
proceedings where:
a. The judge has personal knowledge of
disputed evidentiary facts concerning
the proceeding;
b. 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;
c. The judge’s ruling in a lower court is
the subject of review;
d. The judge is related by consanguinity
or affinity to a party litigant within the
sixth degree or to counsel within the
fourth degree;
e. The judge knows the judge’s 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,
f. Any other interest that could be
substantially affected by the outcome of
the proceeding.
In every instance, the judge shall indicate
the legal reason for inhibition.
NOTE: A motion for inhibition cannot be granted
on mere imputation of bias or partiality. It must
be for just and valid reasons (Rodica v. Atty.
Lazaro, A.C. No. 9259, March 13, 2013.
REMITTAL OF DISQUALIFICATION
RULE 3.13, CANON 3
A judge disqualified by the terms of Rule 3.12
may, instead of withdrawing from the
proceeding, disclose on the record 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
insubstantial, the judge may then participate in
the proceeding.
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2018 GOLDEN NOTES
156
The agreement, signed by the parties, shall be
incorporated in the record of the proceeding.
CANON 4
A JUDGE MAY, WITH DUE REGARD TO
OFFICIAL DUTIES, ENGAGE IN ACTIVITIES
TO IMPROVE THE LAW, THE LEGAL
SYSTEM AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF
RULE 4.01, CANON 4
A judge may, to the extent that the following
activities do not impair the performance of
judicial duties or cast doubt on the judge’s
impartiality:
a. Speak, write, lecture, teach of participate
in activities concerning the law, the legal
system and the administration of justice;
b. Appear at a public hearing before a
legislative or executive body on matters
concerning the law, the legal system or the
administration of justice and otherwise
consult with them on matters concerning the
administration of justice;
c. Serve on any organization devoted to the
improvement of the law, the legal system or
the administration of justice.
Q: Judge Cristina has many law-related
activities. She teaches law and delivers
lectures on law. Some people in the
government consult her on their legal
problems. She also serves as director of a
stock corporation devoted to penal reform,
where she participates in both fund raising
and fund management. Which of the aforesaid
activities is she allowed to do? (2011 Bar)
A: She can teach and deliver lectures on law (Sec.
10(a) Canon 4 New Code of Judicial Conduct) but
she cannot give legal advice since it is considered
as practice of law to which judges are prohibited
to do (Sec. 11 Canon 4, New Code of Judicial
Conduct). Also, she cannot serve as director of a
stock corporation since the same is incompatible
with the diligent discharge of judicial duties. (Sec.
7 Canon 6, New Code of Judicial Conduct) She can
be a director of her Family Corporation but not
part of the management.
 JUDICIAL ETHICS
CANON 5,
A JUDGE SHOULD REGULATE
EXTRAJUDICIAL ACTIVITIES TO
MINIMIZE THE RISK OF CONFLICT WITH
JUDICIAL DUTIES.
(1995, 1997, 1999, 2000, 2002 Bar)
Advocational, Civil and Charitable Activities
RULE 5.01, CANON 5
A judge may engage in the following activities
provided that they do not interfere with the
performance of judicial duties or detract from
dignity of the court:
1. Write, teach and speak on non-legal subjects;
2. Engage in the arts, sports, and other special
recreational activities;
3. Participate in civic and charitable activities;
4. Serve as an officer, director, trustee, or non-
legal advisor of non-profit or non-political,
educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or
civic organization.
FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES
RULE 5.02, CANON 5
A judge shall refrain from financial and
business dealings that tend to reflect adversely
on the court’s impartiality, interfere with the
proper performance of judicial activities or
increase involvement with lawyers or persons
likely to come before the court.
A judge should so manage investments and
other financial interests as to minimize the
number of cases giving grounds for
disqualifications.
Rule regarding financial activities
A judge shall refrain from financial and business
dealings that tend to:
1. Reflect adversely on the court’s impartiality;
2. Interfere with the proper performance of
judicial activities; or
3. Increase involvement with lawyers or
persons likely to come before the court. [Rule
5.02, Canon 5, Code of Judicial Conduct (1989)]
By allowing himself to act as agent in the sale of
the subject property, respondent judge has
increased the possibility of his disqualification to
act as an impartial judge in the event that a
157
dispute involving the said contract of sale arises.
Also, the possibility that the parties to the sale
might plead before his court is not remote and his
business dealings with them might not only
create suspicion as to his fairness but also to his
ability to render it in a manner that is free from
any suspicion as to its fairness and impartiality,
and also as to the judge’s integrity (Alloro vs.
Judge Barte, A.M. No. MTJ-02-1443, July 31, 2002).
NOTE: A judge shall make full financial disclosure
as required by law. [Rule 5.08, Canon 5, Code of
Judicial Conduct (1989)]
RULE 5.03, CANON 5
Subject to the provisions of the proceeding
rule, a judge may hold and manage
investments but should not serve as officer,
director, manager or advisor, or employee of
any business except as director of a family
business of the judge.
Rule on judges having investments
GR: A judge may hold and manage investments
but should not serve as:
1. An officer
2. Director
3. Manager
4. Advisor
5. Employee of any business
XPN: As director of a family business of the judge.
(Rule 5.03, Canon 5, Code of Judicial Conduct
(1989))
RULE 5.04, CANON 5
A judge or any immediate member of the
family shall not accept a gift, bequest,
factor or loan from anyone except as may
be allowed by law.
Prohibited Activities of Judges
a. Accept a gift, bequest, factor or loan from
anyone except as may be allowed by law
(Rule 5.04)
b. Engage in the private practice of law (Rule
5.07)
c. Accept appointment or designation to any
agency performing quasi-judicial or
administrative functions (Rule 5.09)
d. Make political speeches, contribute to
party funds, publicly endorse candidates
for political office or participate in other
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 Legal Ethics
partisan political activities [Rule 5.02,
Canon 5, Code of Judicial Conduct (1989)]
NEW CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT
INDEPENDENCE
CANON 1
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.
Judicial Independence
An independent Judiciary is one free from
inappropriate outside influence.
Individual Judicial Independence focuses on each
particular case and seeks to insure the ability of
the judge to decide cases with autonomy and
within the constraints of the law while
Institutional Judicial Independence focuses on the
independence of the judiciary as a branch of the
government and protects judges as a class (In the
Matter of the Allegations Contained in the Columns
of Mr. Amado P. Macasaet Published in Malaya
dated September 18, 19, 20 and 21, 2007).
NOTE: The treatment of independence as a single
Canon is the primary difference between the new
Canon 1 and the Canon 1 of the 1989 Code.
SECTION 1, CANON 1, NCJC
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.
Judges should inspire public confidence in the
judiciary which can be attained only if judges are
perceived by the public to be fair, honest,
competent, principled, dignified and honorable.
Accordingly, the first duty of judges is to conduct
themselves at all times in a manner that is beyond
reproach.
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2018 GOLDEN NOTES
158
Judges must reject pressure by maintaining
independence from, but not limited to the
following:
1. Independence from public officials – the
public laid their confidence on the fact that
the official is mentally and morally fit to pass
upon the merits of their varied intentions.
2. Independence from government as a
whole– avoid inappropriate connections, as
well as any situation that would give rise to
the impression of the existence of such
inappropriate connections.
3. Independence from family, social, or other
relationships– avoid sitting in litigation
where a near relative is a part of or counsel;
be independent from judicial colleagues (Sec.
2) and avoid such actions as may reasonably
tend to wake the suspicion that his social or
business relations constitute an element in
determining his judicial course.
4. Independence from public opinion– the
only guide of the official is the mandate of
law.
Q: In a civil case submitted for a decision,
Judge Corpuz-Macandog acted based on a
telephone call from a government official
telling her to decide the case in favor of the
defendant, otherwise she will be removed.
The judge explained that she did so under
pressure considering that the country was
under a revolutionary government at that
time. Did the judge commit an act of
misconduct?
A: YES. A judge must decide a case based on its
merits. For this reason, a judge is expected to be
fearless in the pursuit to render justice, to be
unafraid to displease any person, interest or
power, and to be equipped with a moral fiber
strong enough to resist temptation lurking in her
office. Here, it is improper for a judge to have
decided a case based only on a directive from a
government official and not on the judge’s own
ascertainment of facts and applicable law
(Ramirez v. Corpuz-Macandog, A.M. No. R-351-RTJ,
September 26, 1986).
Q: Mayor C was shot by B, the bodyguard of
Mayor D, inside the court room of Judge
Dabalos. Consequently, an information with
no bail recommendation was filed against B
and D. The murder case was then scheduled
 JUDICIAL ETHICS
for raffle but before the scheduled date, the
son of Mayor C together with their counsel,
Atty. Libarios, and other sympathizers staged
a rally demanding immediate arrest of the
accused. Judge Dabalos then issued an order
without prior hearing directing the issuance
of a warrant of arrest against the accused. Did
the judge commit an act of misconduct?
A: YES. The judge should not issue warrant of
arrest without personally evaluating the
resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting
evidence to establish judicial probable cause
(Sec.6, Rule 112, RRC). A judge in every case
should endeavor diligently to ascertain the facts
and the applicable law unswayed by partisan or
personal interests, public opinion or fear of
criticism. Here, the judge should not have allowed
himself to be swayed into issuing a warrant of
arrest (Libarios v. Dabalos A.M. No.RTJ-89-286,
July 11, 1991).
SEC. 2, CANON 1, NCJC
In performing judicial duties, judges shall be
independent from judicial colleagues in respect
of decisions which the judge is obliged to make
independently.
Degree of independence
The highest degree of independence is required
of judges. He must be independent in decision-
making. He cannot consult with staff and court
officials. However, he can ask colleagues purely
academic or hypothetical questions but not to the
extent of asking them to decide a case.
Every judge must decide independently, even in
collegial court. While there may be discussions
and exchange of ideas among judges, the judge
must decide on the basis of his own, sole,
judgment (Funa, 2009).
NOTE: It is every judge’s duty to respect the
individual independence of fellow judges.
SEC. 3, CANON 1, NCJC
Judges shall refrain from influencing in any
manner the outcome of litigation or dispute
pending before another court or
administrative agency.
Principle of Subjudice
159
A judge is prohibited from making public
statements in the media regarding a pending case
so as not to arouse public opinion for or against a
party. (2007 Bar)
This section affirms that a judge’s restraint from
exerting influence over other judicial or quasi-
judicial bodies is required for more than just
propriety.
Any attempt, whether successful or not, to
influence the decision-making process of another
judge, especially one who is of lower rank and
over whom a judge exercises supervisory
authority constitutes serious misconduct.
SEC. 4, CANON 1, NCJC
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.
Purpose of Sec. 4, Canon 1 of NCJC
It is intended to ensure that judges are spared
from potential influence of family members by
disqualifying them even before any opportunity
for impropriety presents itself.
The term “judge’s family” includes:
1. Judge’s spouse
2. Son/s
3. Daughter/s
4. Son/s-in-law
5. Daughter/s-in-law
6. Other relatives by consanguinity or affinity
within the sixth civil degree, or
7. Any person who is a companion or employee
of the judge and who lives in the judge’s
household. (NCJC of the Philippine Judiciary-
Annotated, February 2007)
When the judge is related to one of the parties
within the sixth degree of consanguinity or
affinity, a judge’s disqualification to sit in a
case is mandatory.
NOTE: Judges should ensure that their family
members, friends and associates refrain from
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 Legal Ethics
creating the impression that they are in a position
to influence the judge. Judges should, therefore, at
all times remind themselves that they are not in
the judiciary to give out favors but to dispense
justice. They should also make it clear to the
members of their family, friends and associates
that they will neither be influenced by anyone,
nor would they allow anyone to interfere in their
work.
SEC. 5, CANON 1, NCJC
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.
This section affirms the independence of the
judiciary from the two other branches of
government.
NOTE: Judicial independence is the reason for
leaving exclusively to the Court the authority to
deal with internal personnel issues, even if the
court employees in question are funded by the
local government (Bagatsing v. Herrera, G.R. No.
L-34952, July 25, 1975).
Q: Several employees of the city government
of Quezon City were appointed and assigned
at the office of the Clerk of Court-MeTC QC to
assist the organic staff of the judiciary.
However, the executive judge of MeTC QC, in
view of a reorganization plan, returned those
employees to different offices of QC
government saying that the court was already
overstaffed. The judge also requested the QC
Mayor to re-employ the laid off employees.
Did the judge commit any improper conduct?
A: YES. An executive judge has no authority to
cause the transfer of court employees as the
jurisdiction to do so is lodged solely upon the SC
through the Office of the Court Administrator.
This is so because of the need to maintain judicial
independence. Moreover, a judge shall be free
from inappropriate connections with and
influence from the executive and legislative
branch. Here, the judge did not act independently
of the LGU when she asked the Mayor of QC to re-
employ the displaced employees instead of
informing the SC through the OCA of the need to
streamline her court of its personal needs
(Alfonso v. Alonzo-Legasto, A.M. No. MTJ 94-995,
September 5, 2002).
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2018 GOLDEN NOTES
160
Q: Judges of the first and second level courts
are allowed to receive assistance from the
local government units where they are
stationed. This assistance could be in the form
of equipment or allowance. Justices at the
Court of Appeals in the regional stations in the
Visayas and Mindanao are not necessarily
residents thereof, hence, they incur additional
expenses for their accommodations. Pass on
the propriety of the justices' receipt of
assistance/allowance from the local
governments. (2010 Bar)
A: Section 5, Cannon 1 of the New Code of Judicial
Conduct for the Philippine judiciary provides that
Judges shall be free from inappropriate
connections with, and influence by, the executive
branch, and must appear to be free therefrom to a
reasonable extent. It is a common perception that
the receipt of allowances or assistance from a
local government unit may affect the judge's
ability to rule independently in cases involving
the said unit.
SEC. 6, CANON 1, NCJC
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.
The act of a judge in meeting with litigants
outside the office premises beyond office hours
violate the standard of judicial conduct required
to be observed by members of the Bench (Tan v.
Judge Rosete, A.M. No. MTJ-04-1563, September 8,
2004).
It is desirable that the judge should, as far as
reasonably possible, refrain from all relations
which would normally tend to arouse suspicion
that such relations warp or bias his judgment,
and prevent an impartial attitude of minds in the
administration of judicial duties. Judges should
not fraternize with litigants and their counsel;
they should make a conscious effort to avoid
them in order to avoid the perception that their
independence has been compromised (Ibid.).
SEC. 7, CANON 1, NCJC
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.
 JUDICIAL ETHICS
SEC. 8, CANON 1, NCJC
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.
NOTE: Sections 7 and 8 of Canon 1 are intended
to serve as catch-all provisions for all other acts
that would guarantee the independence of the
judiciary.
There can be no sure guarantee of judicial
independence than the character of those
appointed to the Bench.
Judges must remain conscious of their character
and reputation as judges and should avoid
anything which will not dignify their public
positions and demean the institution to which
they belong, in whatever atmosphere or
environment they may happen to be.
Q: Palma and Mercado sent e-mails to
Supreme Court regarding an alleged marriage
scams in Davao City—among which is the
matrimony of a certain Echeverria. According
to Echeverria, his marriage was solemnized
by Judge Omelio in his house and as proof,
Echeverria presented pictures of his wedding.
However, in the marriage certificate, the
solemnizing officer was Judge Murcia and the
same was done in Island Garden, City of
Samal. Judge Omelio explained that he was
merely invited to a dinner and the
Echeverrias requested him to reenact the
wedding for the purpose of picture taking;
while Judge Murcia claimed that he
solemnized the subject marriage on February
28, 2008 at about 5:30 in the afternoon in his
courtroom and that the contracting parties, as
well as their witnesses, appeared before him.
Are Judge Omelio and Judge Murcia
administratively liable?
A:YES, they are liable. Judge Murcia affixed his
signature in the Marriage Contract of Julius and
Khristine Echeverria without actually
solemnizing their marriage. Judge Murcia's claim
that the contracting parties personally appeared
before him was belied by the groom himself.
Meanwhile, Judge Omelio's contention that he
merely re-enacted the wedding ceremony upon
the request of the groom's parents was similarly
debunked by Echeverria’s admission that it was
actually Judge Omelio who solemnized his
marriage at his home in Davao City. Besides, his
161
defense of reenactment would not justify his
infraction. As a duly-authorized solemnizing
officer, Judge Omelio is expected to know that
marriage should not be trifled with, and its
sanctity and inviolability should never be
undermined, especially by such a lame ground as
picture-taking (Ms. Palma etc. v. Judge Omelio,
A.M. No. RTJ-10-2223, August 30, 2017).
INTEGRITY
CANON 2
INTEGRITY IS ESSENTIAL NOT ONLY TO THE
PROPER DISCHARGE OF THE JUDICIAL
OFFICE, BUT ALSO TO THE PERSONAL
DEMEANOR OF JUDGES.
A judge should act with integrity and behave with
integrity at all times so as to promote public
confidence in the integrity of the judiciary.
The integrity of the judiciary rests not only upon
the fact that it is able to administer justice but
also upon the perception and confidence of the
community that people who run the system have
done justice. Justice must not be merely done but
must also be seen to be done (Panaligan v. Judge
Ibay, A.M. No. TJ-06-1972, June 21, 2006).
By the very nature of the bench, judges, more
than the average man, are required to observe an
exacting standard of morality and decency. The
character of a judge is perceived by the people
not only through his official acts but also through
his private morals as reflected in his external
behavior. It is therefore paramount that a judge’s
personal behavior both in the performance of his
duties and his daily life, be free from the
appearance of impropriety as to be beyond
reproach. (De la Cruz v. Judge Bersamira, A.M. No.
RTJ-00-1567. January 19, 2001)
NOTE: Under the 1989 Code, the values of
INTEGRITY and INDEPENDENCE were grouped
together, but the New Code of Judicial Conduct
separated them to emphasize the need to
maintain a life of PERSONAL and PROFESSIONAL
INTEGRITY in order to properly carry out their
judicial functions.
Presumption regarding judges
Judges are presumed honest and men of integrity,
unless proven otherwise.
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 Legal Ethics
SECTION 1, CANON 2, NCJC
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.
The maintenance of the court’s integrity is not
the sole duty of the judge. It is also the duty of
court personnel to see to it that its integrity is
unblemished.
NOTE: A judge’s personal behavior, both in the
performance of his duties and in his daily life,
must be free from any appearance of impropriety
as to be beyond reproach.
Q: Justice B of the CA was a former RTC Judge.
A case which he heard as a trial judge was
raffled off to him. The appellant sought his
disqualification from the case but he refused
on the ground that he was not the judge who
decided the case as he was already promoted
to the appellate court before he could decide
the case. Was the refusal of Justice B to recuse
from the case proper? (2014 Bar)
A: Justice B's refusal to recuse is not proper. After
hearing the evidence during the trial when he
was still a judge, he has personal knowledge of
the disputed evidentiary facts concerning the
proceedings. The standard under the New Code of
Judicial Conduct on the inability of Justice B to
decide the matter impartially is not in him but the
appearance of the disqualification of Justice D to a
reasonable observer that he is unable to decide
the matter impartially. The conduct of a
judge/justice should not only be above reproach
but it should be also perceived to be so in the
view of a reasonable observer (Canon 2, Integrity,
New Code of Judicial Conduct).
Q: Judge Ferdinand Marcos of RTC Cebu is
married to Rotilla with whom he begot 2
children. However, during a Fun Run
sponsored by Philippine Judges Association
(PJA), Judge Marcos appeared with a woman
other than his wife whom he even introduced
to Justice Davide as his living partner. Should
the judge be disciplined?
A: YES. The Code of Judicial Conduct requires a
judge to be the embodiment of integrity, and to
avoid appearance of impropriety in all activities.
Here, Judge Marcos’ conduct of flaunting his
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2018 GOLDEN NOTES
162
mistress is a conduct unbecoming of a judge. By
living with a woman other than his legal wife,
Judge Marcos has demonstrated himself to be
wanting in integrity, thus, unfit to remain in office
and continue discharging the functions of a judge
(Re: Complaint of Mrs. Rotilla A. Marcos and Her
Children against Judge Ferdinand J. Marcos, RTC,
Br. 20, Cebu City, A.M. No. 97-2-53 RTC, July 6,
2001).
Judges must always wear their robes at
hearings
A judge must take care not only to remain true to
the high ideals of competence and integrity his
robe represents, but also that he wears one in the
first place (Chan v. Majaducan A.M. No. RTJ-02-
1697, October 15, 2003).
Q: After being diagnosed with stress
dermatitis, Judge Rosalind, without seeking
permission from the Supreme Court, refused
to wear her robe during court proceedings.
When her attention was called, she explained
that whenever she wears her robe she is
reminded of her heavy caseload, thus making
her tense. This, in turn, triggers the outbreak
of skin rashes. Is Judge Rosalind justified in
not wearing her judicial robe? Explain. (2009
Bar)
A: Judge Rosalind is not justified. In Chan v.
Majaducon, the Supreme Court emphasized that
the wearing of robes of judges as required by
Admin. Circular No. 25, dated June 9, 1989, serves
the dual purpose of heightening public
consciousness on the solemnity of judicial
proceedings and in impressing upon the judge the
exacting obligations of his office. The robe is part
of the judge’s appearance and is as important as a
gavel. The Supreme Court added while
circumstances, such as medical condition claimed
by the respondent judge, may exempt one from
complying with AC No. 25, the judge must first
secure the Court’s permission for such
exemption.
SEC. 2, CANON 2, NCJC
The behavior and conduct of judges must
reaffirm the people’s faith in the integrity of
the Judiciary.
 JUDICIAL ETHICS
Justice must not merely be done, but must
also be seen to be done.
A judge has the duty to not only render a just and
impartial decision, but also render it in such a
manner as to be free from any suspicion as to its
fairness and impartiality, and also as to the
judge’s integrity. While judges should possess
proficiency in law in order that they can
completely construe and enforce the law, it is
more important that they should act and behave
in such a manner that the parties before them
should have confidence in their impartiality
(Sibayan-Joaquin v. Javellana, A.M. No. RTJ-00-
1601, November 13, 2001).
In pending or prospective litigations before them,
judges should be scrupulously careful to avoid
anything that may tend to awaken the suspicion
that their personal, social or sundry relations
could influence their objectivity.
Q: Justice Mariano Del Castillo was charged
with plagiarism, twisting of cited materials,
and gross neglect in connection with the
decision he wrote for the court in Vinuya v.
Romulo. Petitioners, members of the Malaya
Lolas Organization, seek reconsideration of
the decision of the Court dated October 12,
2010 that dismissed the said complaint.
Petitioners claim that the Court has by its
decision legalized or approved of the
commission of plagiarism in the Philippines.
Should the respondent justice be held guilty
for plagiarism?
A: NO. A judge writing to resolve a dispute,
whether trial or appellate, is exempted from a
charge of plagiarism even if ideas, words or
phrases from a law review article, novel thoughts
published in a legal periodical or language from a
party’s brief are used without giving attribution.
Thus, judges are free to use whatever sources
they deem appropriate to resolve the matter
before them, without fear of reprisal. This
exemption applies to judicial writings intended to
decide cases for two reasons: the judge is not
writing a literary work and, more importantly,
the purpose of the writing is to resolve a
dispute. As a result, judges adjudicating cases are
not subject to a claim of legal plagiarism (In re:
charges A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC of the plagiarism
etc., against Associate Justice Mariano C. Del
Castillo, Feb 8, 2011)
163
SEC. 3, CANON 2, NCJC
Judges should take or initiate appropriate
disciplinary measures against lawyers or
court personnel for unprofessional conduct of
which the judge may have become aware.
A judge may summarily punish any person
including lawyers and court personnel, for direct
contempt for misbehavior committed in the
presence of or so near a court or a judge as to
obstruct or interrupt the proceedings before the
same (Rule 71, RRC).
He may also punish any person for indirect
contempt after appropriate charge and hearing,
for acts enumerated under Section 3, Rule 71 of
the Rules of Court.
Judge’s duty with respect to court employees
A judge should constantly keep a watchful eye on
the conduct of his employees. His constant
scrutiny of the behavior of his employees would
deter any abuse on the part of the latter in the
exercise of their duties (Buenaventura v.
Benedicto, A.C. No. 137-5, March 27, 1971).
A judge cannot dismiss court personnel. The
power to dismiss a court employee is vested in
the Supreme Court (Dailay-Papa v. Almora, A.M.
Nos. 543-MC and 1525-MJ, December 19, 1981).
NOTE: Judges should not be lenient in the
administrative supervision of employees. As an
administrator, the judge must ensure that all
court personnel perform efficiently and promptly
in the administration of justice. (Ramirez v.
Corpuz-Macandog, A.M. No. R-351-RTJ, September
26, 1986)
All court personnel, from the lowliest employees
to the clerks of court, are involved in the
dispensation of justice like judges and justices,
and parties seeking redress from the courts for
grievances look upon them also as part of the
judiciary. In performing their duties and
responsibilities, court personnel serve as
sentinels of justice, that any act of impropriety
they commit immeasurably affects the honor and
dignity of the judiciary and the people's
confidence in the judiciary. They are, therefore,
expected to act and behave in a manner that
should uphold the honor and dignity of the
judiciary, if only to maintain the people’s
confidence in the judiciary (Guerrero v.Ong, A.M.
No. P-09-2676, December 16, 2009).
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 Legal Ethics
Q: While Judge Tuparin was in his chambers
dictating an order to a stenographer, two
lawyers who were in the courtroom waiting
for the start of the session almost came to
blows as a result of a heated argument.
Tuparin came out of his chambers and after
identifying the lawyers involved in the
commotion promptly declared them in
contempt of court. Was the action of Judge
Tuparin proper?
A: NO. The act committed by the two lawyers was
indirect contempt violative of the rule punishing
“any improper conduct tending directly or
indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the
administration of justice”, since the judge was
then engaged in dictating an order before the
morning session was called. The act of the two
lawyers constituted obstruction of the
administration of justice, which was indirect
contempt. Accordingly, they could only be
punished after notice and hearing.
Q: A complaint against Judge Melo was filed
for violating the NCJC and for gross ignorance
of the law. It was alleged that he solemnized
marriages without the required marriage
license. He instead notarized affidavits of
cohabitation and issued them to the
contracting parties. He notarized these
affidavits on the day of the parties’ marriage.
It was argued that affidavits of cohabitation
are not connected with a judge’s official
functions and duties as solemnizing officer.
Will the complaint prosper?
A: YES. Judge Melo notarized affidavits of
cohabitation, which were documents not
connected with the exercise of his official
functions and duties as solemnizing officer. He
also notarized affidavits of cohabitation without
certifying that lawyers or notaries public were
lacking in his court’s territorial jurisdiction, thus
he violated Circular No. 1–90. Further, Judge Melo
violated NCJC provisions on integrity since it is
well-settled that if the law involved is basic,
ignorance constitutes “lack of integrity.” Violating
basic legal principles and procedure nine times is
gross ignorance of the law. (Tupal vs. Judge Rojo,
A.M. No. MTJ–14–1842, February 24, 2014)
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2018 GOLDEN NOTES
164
IMPARTIALITY
CANON 3
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.
Principle of cold neutrality of an impartial
judge
While a judge should possess proficiency in law in
order that he can competently construe and
enforce the law, it is more important that he
should act and behave in such a manner that the
parties before him should have confidence in his
impartiality. Thus, it is not enough that he decides
cases without bias and favoritism. Nor is it
sufficient that he in fact rids himself of
prepossessions. His actuations should moreover
inspire that belief. (Rosauro v. Judge Villanueva Jr.,
A.M. No. RTJ-99-1433, June 26, 2000)
NOTE: A judge has both duties: the duty of
rendering a just decision; and, doing it in a
manner completely free from suspicion as to his
fairness and as to his integrity.
SEC. 1, CANON 3, NCJC
Judges shall perform their judicial duties
without favor, bias or prejudice.
It is the duty of all judges not only to be impartial
but also to appear impartial. A judge must
exercise prudence and restraint and should
reserve personal views and predilections to
himself so as not to stir up suspicions of bias and
unfairness.
Degree of proof required to prove bias on the
part of the judge
The complainant must prove the same by clear
and convincing evidence since allegations of bias
are quite serious. Mere allegations are not
sufficient to constitute a violation of the rule. Bias
and prejudice cannot be presumed and mere
suspicion of partiality is not enough.
Q: A filed an action for specific performance
with the RTC of Quezon City, presided by
 JUDICIAL ETHICS
Judge Santiago, against X Corporation asking
for the delivery of the title of 1 subdivision lot
in Batangas which lot was given to him in
payment for his services as geodetic surveyor.
Meanwhile X Corporation filed with MTC of
Batangas an action for an unlawful detainer
against certain lot buyers on motion of A.
Judge Santiago issued TRO against X
Corporation and the Judge of MTC and
enjoining the latter from proceeding with the
case. X Corporation now filed a motion to
inhibit the judge on the ground that he
arbitrarily issued such TRO, but without
presenting evidence showing partiality on the
part of the judge. Should the judge be
inhibited?
A: NO. For a judge to be inhibited, allegations of
partiality and pre-judgment must be proven by
clear and convincing evidence. Here, mere
allegation that the judge arbitrarily issued the
TRO without presenting evidence showing bias
on his part is not sufficient. While Judge Santiago
acted in excess of his jurisdiction when he issued
the TRO for such should only be enforceable
within his territorial jurisdiction, such error may
not necessarily warrant inhibition, at most it is
correctible by certiorari. (Dimo Realty
&Development, Inc. v. Dimaculangan, G.R. No.
130991, March 11, 2004)
Extra-judicial source rule
It means that the decision is based on some
influence other than the facts and law presented
in the courtroom.
Q: A motion to inhibit Judge Dicdican was filed
on the ground of partiality and bias on his
part for allegedly denying a motion to hear
affirmative defenses, thereby denying the
movant the opportunity to be heard. Should
the judge be inhibited?
A: NO. Judge Dicdican cannot be charged with
bias and partiality, merely on the basis of his
decision not to grant a motion for a preliminary
hearing. Allegations and perceptions of bias from
the mere tenor and language of a judge are
insufficient to show pre-judgment. Moreover, as
long as opinions formed in the course of judicial
proceedings are based on the evidence presented
and the conduct observed by the judge, such
opinion – even if later found to be erroneous on
appeal or made with grave abuse of discretion on
165
certiorari –will not necessarily prove personal
bias or prejudice on the part of the judge. To
allow inhibition for such reason would open
floodgates to abuse. (Gochan v. Gochan,G.R. No.
143089, February 27, 2003)
SEC. 2, CANON 3, NCJC
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.
Rationale
No judge should handle a case in which he might
be perceived, rightly or wrongly, to be susceptible
to bias and impartiality. His judgment must not
be tainted by even the slightest suspicion of
improbity or preconceived interest. The rule is
aimed at preserving at all times the faith and
confidence in courts of justice by any party to the
litigation. (Urbanes, Jr. v. C.A., G.R. No. 117964,
March 28, 2001)
There is undue interference where the judge’s
participation in the conduct of the trial tends to
build or to bolster a case of one of the parties. (Ty
v. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank, CA
and Hon. Tac-an G.R. Nos. 149797-98, February 13,
2004)
Q: Banco Filipino filed a complaint for
reconveyance of property against Ty and Tala
Realty Services Corp. which was dismissed on
the ground of lack of jurisdiction. However, on
motion for reconsideration filed by Banco
Filipino, the case was reinstated and the judge
even relieved Banco Filipino from its
obligation to prove service of its motion for
reconsideration and presumed actual receipt
of the same by the other party. Thereafter, the
judge directed the Ty and Tala to present
certain documents despite failure of Banco
Filipino to tender the costs for such
production and inspection. Did the judge
commit any improper conduct?
A: YES. a judge may not be legally prohibited
from sitting in litigation, but when circumstances
appear that will induce doubt as to his honest
actuations and probity in favor of either party, or
incite such state of mind, he should conduct a
careful self-examination. He should exercise his
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 Legal Ethics
discretion in a way that the people’s faith in the
courts of justice is not impaired. The better
course for the judge under such circumstances is
to disqualify himself. That way, he avoids being
misunderstood; his reputation for probity and
objectivity is preserved. What is more important
is that the ideal of impartial administration of
justice is lived up to. Here, the judge, by assuming
actual receipt by the respondents of proof of
service of the motion for reconsideration,
absolving Banco Filipino from paying the
expenses of production of documents, and
suggesting to Banco Filipino what evidence to
present to prove its case, transgressed the
boundaries of impartiality. Thus, the judge should
inhibit himself (Ty v. Banco Filipino Savings and
Mortgage Bank, et. Al., G.R. Nos. 149797-98,
February 13, 2004).
NOTE: In disposing of a criminal case, a judge
should avoid appearing like an advocate for
either party. It is also improper for the judge to
push actively for amicable settlement against the
wishes of the complainant. A judge’s unwelcome
persistence makes the judge vulnerable to
suspicions of favoritism. (Montemayor v. Bermejo,
Jr.,A.M. No.MTJ-04-1535, March 12, 2004)
SEC. 3, CANON 3,NCJC
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.
Meaning of “duty to sit”
It means that a judge must ensure that he will not
be unnecessarily disqualified from a case.
A judge cannot inhibit himself as he pleases. A
decision to inhibit must be based on good, sound
or ethical grounds, or for just and valid reasons. It
is not enough that a party cast some tenuous
allegations of partiality at the judge.
Rule of necessity
It states that a judge is not disqualified to sit in a
case where there is no other judge available to
hear and decide the case. Furthermore, when all
judges will be disqualified as a result, it will not
be permitted to destroy the only tribunal with the
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2018 GOLDEN NOTES
166
power in the premises. The doctrine operates on
the principle that a basic judge is better than no
judge at all. It is the duty of the disqualified judge
to hear and decide the case regardless of
objections or disagreements. (Parayno vs.
Meneses, G.R. No. 112684, April 26, 1994)
SEC. 4, CANON 3, NCJC
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.
Reason for the rule
This section warns judges against making any
comment that might reasonably be expected to
affect the outcome of the proceedings before
them; or those that the judge may later decide but
not yet before him; or "impair the manifest
fairness of the process.”
A judge’s language, both written and spoken,
must be guarded and measured, lest the best of
intentions be misconstrued. (Fecundo v.
Berjamen, G.R. No. 88105, December 18, 1989)
Q: After the pre-trial of a civil case for
replevin, Judge D advised B’s counsel to settle
the case because according to Judge D, his
initial assessment of the case shows that B’s
evidence is weak.
a. Did Judge D commit an act of impropriety?
Explain
b. What remedy or remedies may be taken
by B’s lawyer against Judge D? Discuss
Fully. (2014 Bar)
A:
a. YES, Judge D violated Canon 3 of the NCJC.
He should not make any comment that might
reasonably be expected to affect the outcome
of the proceedings or impair the manifest
fairness of the process.
b. B's lawyer can file a motion for the
disqualification of the judge under Canon 3
for bias or prejudice based on the appearance
of the comment to a reasonable observer. A
 JUDICIAL ETHICS
pre-trial is not yet the complete and
exhaustive presentation of evidence of the
parties.
Q: Justice Antonio Carpio penned a decision
regarding the invalidity of the amended joint
venture agreement between Public Estates
Authority (PEA) and Amari Coastal Bay
Development Corporation saying that the
agreement is unconstitutional as PEA cannot
transfer ownership of a reclaimed land to a
private corporation. Amari now filed a motion
to inhibit Justice Carpio on the ground of bias
and pre-judgment allegedly because he had
previously written in his column in Manila
Times a statement to the effect that the law
required public bidding of reclaimed projects
and that the PEA-Amari contract was flawed
for it was not bid by the PEA. Decide on the
motion.
A: The motion to inhibit must be denied for three
reasons:
1. The motion to inhibit must be denied if filed
after a member of the court had already
rendered his opinion on the merits of the
case. Here, the motion was filed after Justice
Carpio had already rendered a decision;
2. The ratio decidendi of the decision was not
based on his statements on the column. Here,
the decision was based on constitutional
grounds and not in the absence of public
bidding; and
3. Judges and justices are not disqualified from
participating in a case just because they have
written legal articles on the law involved in
the case. (Chavez v. PEA, G.R. No. 133250, May
6, 2003)
No absolute prohibition against judges from
making comments
Not all comments are impermissible. Judges may
express their open-mindedness regarding a
pending issue in cases where the judges’
comments do not necessarily favor one side over
the other.
However, judges should avoid side remarks,
hasty conclusions, loose statements or gratuitous
utterances that suggest they are prejudging a
case. Judges should be aware that the media
might consider them a good and credible source
of opinion or ideas, and, therefore, should refrain
167
from making any comment on a pending case.
There is danger not only of being misquoted, but
also of compromising the rights of the litigants in
the case.
SEC. 5, CANON 3, NCJC
Judges shall disqualify themselves from
participating in any proceeding 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 or member of his or her
family, has an economic interest in the
outcome of 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
The phrase “any proceeding” includes, but is
not limited to instances where:
1. The rule also requires disqualification if a
judge has outside knowledge of disputed
facts. To be a ground for disqualification, the
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 Legal Ethics
knowledge must have been obtained extra-
judicially like out-of-court observations. This
prohibition also disallows extra-judicial
research on the internet;
2. The judge previously served as a lawyer or
was a material witness in the matter in
controversy (Sec. 5(b), Canon 3, CJC);
3. A judge may be disqualified if he was
formerly associated with one of the parties or
their counsel;
4. A judge who previously notarized the
affidavit of a person to be presented as a
witness in a case before him shall be
disqualified from proceeding with the case;
5. A municipal judge who filed complaints in his
own court for robbery and malicious mischief
against a party for the purpose of protecting
the property interests of the judge’s co-heirs,
and then issued warrants of arrest against
the party, was found guilty of serious
misconduct and ordered dismissed from the
bench before he was able to rescue himself
(Oktubre v. Velasco A.M. No. MTJ-02-02-1444,
July 20, 2004);
6. The restriction extends to judges who served
as lawyers in closely related cases;
An associate justice of the Court of Appeals
refused to inhibit himself from reviewing the
decision in a case which he had partially
heard as a trial judge prior to his promotion,
on the ground that the decision was not
written by him. The Supreme Court upheld
his refusal, but nevertheless commented that
he "should have been more prudent and
circumspect and declined to take on the case
owing to his earlier involvement in the case”.
The Court has held that a judge should not
handle a case in which he might be perceived,
rightly or wrongly, to be susceptible to bias
and prejudice. (Sandoval v. CA, G.R. No.
106657, August 1, 1996)
NOTE: A preliminary injunction issued by a
judge in favor of his sister before inhibiting
himself was found reprehensible. (Hurtado v.
Judajena, G.R. No. L-40603, July 13, 1978)
7. The judge is not wholly free, disinterested,
impartial and independent (Garcia v. De La
Pena. A.M.No.MTJ-92-637, February 9, 1994);
or
Q: When Atty. Rojas was appointed as a judge,
he inherited a criminal case in which he acted
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2018 GOLDEN NOTES
168
as prosecutor. He explained that his delay in
inhibiting himself from presiding on that case
was because it was only after the belated
transcription of the stenographic notes that
he remembered that he handled that case. He
also said that the counsels did not object and
he never held “full-blown” hearings anyway.
Should Judge Rojas be reprimanded?
A: YES. The Rules of Court prevents judges from
trying cases where they acted as counsel
“without” the consent of the parties. This
prevents not only a conflict of interest but also
the appearance of impropriety on the part of the
judge. Here, the judge should not have taken part
in the proceeding as his impartiality will naturally
be questioned considering that he previously
handled the case as prosecutor. He should
administer justice impartially & without delay.
The prohibition does not only cover hearings but
all judicial acts (e.g. orders, resolutions) some of
which, Judge Rojas did make. (Re: Inhibition of
Judge Eddie R. Rojas, A.M. No. 98-6-185-RTC,
October 30, 1998)
Q: Judge Mijares was charged with grave
misconduct for taking cognizance and
deciding a special proceeding for correction of
entry in the record of her grandson,
notwithstanding such relationship. It was also
alleged that the judge dispensed with the
publication requirement in said proceeding.
In her answer, Judge Mijares contended that
the prohibition provided for under the Code
did not apply to special proceedings which are
not controversial in nature and that she does
not have any pecuniary interest in the case. Is
the contention correct?
A:NO. A judge who is related to a party within the
6th degree of consanguinity is mandated to inhibit
himself from hearing the case “notwithstanding
lack of pecuniary interest in the case”. This is so
because lack of such interest does not mean that
she can already be free from bias and partiality in
resolving the case by reason of her close blood
relationship. (Villaluz v. Mijares, A.M. No. RTJ -98-
1402 288, April 3, 1998)
Degree of compliance required by the rule
under Canon 3, Section 5 of NCJC
Strict compliance of the rule is required so as to
protect the rights of the parties and assure an
impartial administration of justice, as well as to
 JUDICIAL ETHICS
prevent erosion of the people's confidence in the
judiciary. (Marfil v. Cuachon, A.M. No. 2360-MJ,
August 31, 1981)
SEC. 6, CANON 3, NCJC
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 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.
Types of disqualification
1. Mandatory or compulsory disqualification
2. Voluntary disqualification or inhibition
Disqualification v. Inhibition
DISQUALIFICATION INHIBITION
There are specific The rule only provides
grounds enumerated broad basis for
under the rules of inhibition.
court for
disqualification.
The judge has no The rule leaves the
discretion; mandatory matter to the judge’s
sound discretion
The right of a party to seek the inhibition or
disqualification of a judge who does not appear to
be wholly free, disinterested, impartial and
independent in handling the case must be
balanced with the latter’s sacred duty to decide
cases without fear of repression. Thus, it was
incumbent upon a lawyer to establish by clear
and convincing evidence the ground of bias and
prejudice in order to disqualify a Judge from
participating in a particular trial. (Presiding Judge
Madrid v. Atty. Dealca, A.C. No. 7474, September
09, 2014)
Grounds for mandatory disqualification
1. When he, or his wife, or child is pecuniarily
interested as heir, legatee, creditor, or
otherwise;
169
2. When he is related to either party within the
6th degree of consanguinity or affinity or to
counsel within the 4th civil degree;
3. When he has been an executor, guardian,
administrator, trustee, or counsel; or
4. When he has presided in an inferior court
where his ruling or decision is subject to
review, without the written consent of the
parties. (Rule 137, RRC)
Q: In a verified complaint, Kathy said that
Judge Florante decided a petition for
correction of entry involving the birth record
of her grandson, Joshua, who happened to be
child of Judge Florante’s daughter, Pilita.
Judge Florante insisted that he committed no
wrong since the proceeding was non-
adversarial and since it merely sought to
correct an erroneous entry in the child’s birth
certificate. Is Judge Florante liable? (2011
Bar)
A: YES. Sec. 5, Canon 3 provides that: “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: “xx 6. The judge is related by
consanguinity or affinity to a party litigant within
the 6th civil degree or to counsel within the fourth
civil degree.” This is considered as a MANDATORY
INHIBITION. Strict compliance with the rules on
disqualification is required.
Inhibition
An act when a judge personally prevents himself
from taking cognizance of the case. This is made
through a written petition to inhibit which shall
state the grounds for the same. The explanation
of the judge whether or not to take cognizance of
the case must also be in writing.
If the judge inhibits himself from taking
cognizance of the case, the same cannot be
appealed. However, the judge should not
immediately inhibit himself. He should make a
careful examination by first taking into
consideration the following:
1. General consideration – whether the people’s
faith in the judicial system will be impaired
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 Legal Ethics
2. Special consideration –He must reflect on the
probability that the losing party will nurture
at the back of his mind that he tilted the scale
of justice
Voluntary inhibition of a judge
The judge may in his discretion inhibit himself,
for just and valid reasons other than the grounds
for mandatory disqualification. The rule on
voluntary disqualification or inhibition is
discretionary upon the judge on the basis of his
conscience.
This leaves the discretion to the judge to decide
for himself questions as to whether he will desist
from sitting in a case for other just and valid
reasons with only his conscience to guide him,
unless he cannot discern for himself his inability
to meet the test of cold neutrality required of him,
in which event the appellate court will see to it
that he disqualifies himself.
A decision to disqualify himself is not conclusive
and his competency may be determined on
application for mandamus to compel him to act. A
judge’s decision to continue hearing a case in
which he is not legally prohibited from trying
notwithstanding challenge to his objectivity may
not constitute reversible error.
NOTE: The filing of an administrative case against
a judge does not automatically disqualify him
from sitting in a case. It must be shown that there
are other acts or conducts by the judge which
constitute a ground for his disqualification.
A judge may by mandamus be compelled to act on
questions regarding his disqualification from
sitting in a case.
Q: Judge Clint Braso is hearing a case between
Mr. Timothy and Khristopher Company, a
company where his wife used to work as one
of its Junior Executives for several years.
Doubting the impartiality of the Judge, Mr.
Timothy filed a motion to inhibit Judge Clint
Braso. Judge Clint Braso refused on the
ground that his wife has long resigned from
the company. Decide. (2014 Bar)
A: The matter of inhibition is addressed to the
judicious discretion of the judge; hence, only he
can examine is his conscience if he can answer to
the call of cold neutrality.
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2018 GOLDEN NOTES
170
Time to file the petition to disqualify a judge
It must be filed before rendition of the judgment,
and cannot be raised on appeal. Otherwise, the
parties are deemed to have waived any objection
regarding the impartiality of the judge.
Q: Judge Nacy personally witnessed a
vehicular accident near his house. Later, the
Reckless Imprudence case was raffled to his
sala. Is there a valid ground for his inhibition?
(2012 Bar)
A: YES, under Canon 3, Sec. 5 (a), a judge should
decide a case on the basis of the evidence
presented before him and not on extraneous
matters. This tendency will be for him to decide
the case based on his personal knowledge and not
necessarily on the basis of the evidence that will
be presented. The judge, however, is not
precluded from testifying about his personal
knowledge of the case. After, disqualifying
himself, he can be a presented as a witness in the
case before the substitute judge.
Q: A judge rendered a decision in a criminal
case finding the accused guilty of estafa.
Counsel for the accused filed a motion for
reconsideration which was submitted without
arguments. Later, another lawyer entered his
appearance for the accused. The judge issued
an order inhibiting himself from further
sitting in the case because the latter lawyer
had been among those who recommended
him to the bench. Can the judge’s voluntary
inhibition be sustained?
A: The judge may not voluntarily inhibit himself
by the mere fact that a lawyer recommended him
to the bench. In fact, the appearance of said
lawyer is a test as to whether the judge can act
independently and courageously in deciding the
case according to his conscience. “Inhibition is
not allowed at every instance that a friend,
classmate, associate or patron of a presiding
judge appears before him as counsel for one of
the parties to a case. ‘Utang na loob’ per se, should
not be a hindrance to the administration of
justice. Nor should recognition of such value in
Philippine society prevent the performance of
one’s duties as judge. However, in order to avoid
any suspicion of partiality, it is better for the
 JUDICIAL ETHICS
judge to voluntarily inhibit himself. (Query of
Executive Judge Estrella T. Estrada, Regional Trial
Court of Malolos, Bulacan, on the Conflicting Views
of Regional Trial Court – Judges Masadao and
Elizaga Re: Criminal Case No. 4954-M, A.M. No. 87-
9-3918-RTC, October 26, 1987)
Q: Does a judge’s active participation during
the hearing of the writ of preliminary
injunction amount to an evident display of his
bias and partiality in favor of the private
respondents and should he therefore
disqualify himself from further hearing the
civil case?
A: NO. Mere intervention of the respondent judge
during the hearing of preliminary injunction by
simply asking the materiality of a question
directed upon the witness and ruling against the
petitioners are within the prerogatives and
powers of the judge. The fact that the judge asked
questions in the course of the trial does not make
him a biased judge. (Hizon v. Dela Fuente, G.R. No.
152328, March 23, 2004)
Remittal of disqualification
A judge disqualified may, instead of withdrawing
from the proceeding, disclose in 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 insubstantial; 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.
(Sec. 6, Canon 3, NCJC)
Requirements for a judge to continue hearing
a case despite the existence of reasons for
disqualifications
1. The bona fide disclosure to the parties in
litigation; and
2. The express acceptance by all the parties of
the cited reason as not material or
substantial.
PROPRIETY
171
CANON 4
PROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF
PROPRIETY ARE ESSENTIAL TO THE
PERFORMANCE OF ALL THE ACTIVITIES OF
A JUDGE.
The judge’s own perception of motives is not
relevant when considering appearance of
impropriety.
SEC. 1, CANON 4, NCJC
Judges shall avoid impropriety and the
appearance of impropriety in all of their
activities.
The public holds judges to higher standards of
integrity and ethical conduct than lawyers and
other persons not invested with public trust.
Prohibition provided by the Code
It prohibits not only actual impropriety but even
the mere appearance of impropriety.
Appearance of impropriety
Impropriety occurs when the conduct of a judge
creates in reasonable minds a perception that the
judge’s ability to carry out judicial responsibilities
with integrity, impartiality and competence is
impaired.
NOTE: Acts done by a judge which are not illegal
may still constitute a violation of this rule.
Q: After the prosecution cross-examined
Sheila, a witness for the accused, Judge Pedro
asked her ten additional questions that were
so intense, they made her cry. One question
forced Sheila to admit that her mother was
living with another man, a fact that weighed
against the accused. This prompted the
latter’s counsel to move to move to expunge
the judge’s questions for building on the
prosecution’s case Did Judge Pedro commit an
impropriety? (2011 Bar)
A: YES, because he effectively deprived the
defense of its right to due process when he acted
both as prosecutor and judge.
Q: Judge A accepted a gift consisting of
assorted canned goods other grocery items
from his compadre whose friend has a
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 Legal Ethics
pending case with him. He accepted the gift
just so as not to embarrass his compadre.
When his compadre left his chambers, he
asked his secretary to donate the gift he
received to the victims of Typhoon Yolanda.
Did the judge cross the ethical line? Explain
your answer. (2014 Bar)
A: YES, Judge A crossed the ethical line. He
violated the canon of Propriety. As a subject of
public scrutiny, judges must accept personal
restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome
by ordinary citizens and should do so freely and
voluntarily (Sec. 1, Canon 4, NCJC).
Examples of acts of a judge which are not
illegal but will constitute a violation of this
rule
1. The act of a judge of hearing cases on a day
when he is supposed to be on official leave
(Re: Anonymous complaint Against Judge
Edmund Acuña, A.M. No. RTJ-04-1891, July 28,
2005);
2. Photograph showing the judge and a
subordinate coming out of a hotel together
even if there was no clear evidence of sexual
congress between (Liwanag v. Lustre, A.M. No.
MTJ-98-1168, April 21 1999);
3. Joking remark made by a judge to a litigant
suggesting that the litigant prove he
harbored no ill feelings towards the judge (Co
v. Plata, A.M. No. MTJ-03-1501, March 14,
2005).
NOTE: The judge’s act in riding in defendant’s car
deserves the stern probation of the Court. By such
act, he openly exposed himself and the office he
holds to suspicion, thus impairing the trust and
faith of the people in the administration of justice.
A judge’s official conduct should be free from the
appearance of impropriety and his personal
conduct and behavior should be beyond reproach
(Spouses Cabreana v. Avelino A.M. No. 1733 CFI,
September 30, 1981).
Q: During the hearing of an election protest
filed by the brother of Judge Dojillo, the latter
sat beside the counsel of his brother allegedly
to give moral support. Did the judge commit
any improper conduct?
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2018 GOLDEN NOTES
172
A: YES. The judge violated the rule on
impropriety under Sec 1, Canon 4, NCJC for even
if he did not intend to use his position as a judge
to influence the outcome of his brother’s election
protest, it cannot be denied that his presence in
the courtroom during the hearing of his brother’s
case would immediately give cause for the
community to suspect that his being a colleague
in the judiciary would influence the judge trying
the case to favor his brother (Vidal v. Judge Dojillo
Jr., A.M. No. MTJ-05-1591, July 14, 2005).
Q: Judge Duque of the RTC was charged with
Impropriety, Corruption and Gross
Misconduct. At the hearing, Atty. Ubana, the
lawyer of Reyes, introduced her to Judge
Duque who allegedly gave Reyes 30 days to
settle matters with the bank. She was unable
to re-negotiate with the bank. Reyes then
allegedly received a phone call from Judge
Duque and he instructed Reyes to go “to his
house and bring some money in order that he
can deny the pending motion to break open.”
When she already had the money, she went to
his house where Judge Duque demanded the
money from her.
Another incident happened, whereby Reyes
went to the house of Judge Duque for the
payment of a sum of money. Judge Duque
allegedly scolded her for not bringing the
whole amount. Judge Duque then locked the
main door of his house and asked Reyes to
step into his office. Judge Duque held the waist
of Reyes, embraced and kissed her. Reyes
tried to struggle and free herself. Judge Duque
raised her skirt, opened her blouse and
sucked her breasts. He touched her private
parts and attempted to have sexual
intercourse with Reyes. Reyes shouted for
help but the TV was too loud. As a desperate
move, Reyes appealed to Judge Duque saying:
“kung gusto mo, huwag dito. Sa hotel, sasama
ako sayo”. Judge Duque suddenly stopped his
sexual advances and ordered Reyes to fix her
hair. Is the respondent judge guilty of
impropriety and gross misconduct?
A: YES. Judges should avoid impropriety and the
appearance of impropriety in all of their
activities. Judges should conduct themselves in a
way that is consistent with the dignity of the
judicial office. Judges, like any other citizen, are
entitled to freedom of expression, belief,
association and assembly, but in exercising such
 JUDICIAL ETHICS
rights, they should always conduct themselves in
such a manner as to preserve the dignity of the
judicial office and the impartiality and
independence of the judiciary.
The conduct of Judge Duque fell short of the
exacting standards for members of the judiciary.
He failed to behave in a manner that would
promote confidence in the judiciary. Considering
that a judge is a visible representation of the law
and of justice, he is naturally expected to be the
epitome of integrity and should be beyond
reproach. Judge Duque’s conduct indubitably
bore the marks of impropriety and immorality.
He failed to live up to the high moral standards of
the judiciary and even transgressed the ordinary
norms of decency of society. (Reyes v. Duque, A.M.
No. RTJ-08-2136, September 21, 2010)
SEC. 2, CANON 4, NCJC
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.
Membership in the judiciary circumscribes one’s
personal conduct and imposes upon him certain
restrictions, the faithful observance of which, is
the price one has to pay for holding such a
distinguished position. Accordingly, a magistrate
of the law must comort himself in a manner that
his conduct must be free of a whiff of impropriety,
not only with respect to the performance of his
official duties, but also to his behavior outside his
sala and as a private individual. His conduct must
be able to withstand the most searching public
scrutiny, for the ethical principles and sense of
propriety of a judge are essential to the
preservation of the people’s faith in the judicial
system lest public confidence in the judiciary
would be eroded by the incompetent,
irresponsible and negligent conduct of judges
(Bayaca v. Judge Ramos, A.M. No. MTJ-07-1676,
January 29, 2009).
In Macias v. Arula, A judge was admonished for
the appearance of engaging in partisan politics
when he participated in a political rally
sponsored by one party, even though he only
explained the mechanics of block voting to the
audience (A.M. No. 1895-CFI, July 20, 1982).
173
Dignified conduct
It is best described as conduct befitting men and
women possessed of temperance and respect for
the law and for others.
Q: Judge Gonzales, together with his two male
friends, went to the house of A and asked the
two girls who were then boarding in A’s house
to accompany his two male friends and take a
stroll in the beach. When the girls refused, the
judge admonished them. Consequently, the
judge was charged with conduct unbecoming
of a judge. Will the action prosper?
A: YES. A judge should so comport himself as not
to degrade or bring embarrassment to his office.
Here, Judge Gonzales’ act of imposing his will on
the complainants constitutes conducts
unbecoming of a judge who should be civil,
humble and considerate of the rights of others
(Mariano v. Gonzales, A.M. No. 2180-MJ 114, May
31, 1982).
Q: A complaint was filed against Judge Austria
alleging that the judge committed an act of
impropriety when she displayed her
photographs in a social networking website
“Friendster”, some of which showed her
wearing an "off-shouldered" attire. Judge
Maranan contended that an "off-shouldered"
attire is an acceptable social outfit under
contemporary standards and is not forbidden.
Decide.
A: Judge Austria disregarded the propriety and
appearance of propriety required of her when she
posted photos of herself wearing an "off-
shouldered" suggestive dress and made this
available for public viewing. When she made this
picture available for public consumption, she
placed herself in a situation where she, and the
status she holds as a judge, may be the object of
the public’s criticism and ridicule. The act of
posting her photos would seem harmless and
inoffensive had this act been done by an ordinary
member of the public. As the visible
personification of law and justice, however,
judges are held to higher standards of conduct
and, thus, must accordingly comport themselves
(Lorenzana vs. Judge Austria, A.M. No. RTJ-09-
2200, April 2, 2014).
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 Legal Ethics
NOTE: NCJC does not prohibit a judge from
joining or maintaining an account in a social
networking sites. Section 6, Canon 4 of the New
Code of Judicial Conduct recognizes that judges,
like any other citizen, are entitled to freedom of
expression. However, the same provision also
imposes a correlative restriction on judges: in the
exercise of their freedom of expression, they
should always conduct themselves in a manner
that preserves the dignity of the judicial office
and the impartiality and independence of the
Judiciary (Ibid.).
Q: An anonymous letter called on the Court to
look into the morality of respondent Judge
Achas and alleged that: (1) it is of public
knowledge in the city that Judge Achas is
living scandalously with a woman who is not
his wife; (2) he lives beyond his means; (3) he
is involved with illegal activities ( 4) he comes
to court very untidy and dirty; (5) he decides
his cases unfairly in exchange for material and
monetary consideration; and (6) he is
involved with cockfighting/gambling. Judge
Achas denied all the charges but admitted that
he was married and only separated de
facto from his legal wife for 26 years, and that
he reared game cocks for leisure and extra
income, having inherited such from his
forefathers. Should Judge Achas be
disciplined?
A: YES. The investigation revealed that the
respondent judge found for himself a suitable
young lass whom he occasionally goes out with in
public and such a fact is not a secret around town.
It is not commendable, proper or moral for a
judge to be perceived as going out with a woman
not his wife. Such is a blemish to his integrity and
propriety, as well as to that of the judiciary. While
rearing fighting cocks is not illegal, Judge Achas
should avoid mingling with a crowd of
cockfighting enthusiasts and bettors as it
undoubtedly impairs the respect due him. As a
judge, he must impose upon himself personal
restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome
by the ordinary citizen and should do so freely
and willingly (Anonymous v.Achas, A.M. No. MTJ-
11-1801, February 27, 2013).
SEC. 3, CANON 4, NCJC
Judges shall, in their personal relations with
individual members of the legal profession
who practice regularly in their court, avoid
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2018 GOLDEN NOTES
174
situations which might reasonably give rise to
the suspicion or appearance of favoritism or
partiality.
This section is directed at bolstering the principle
of cold neutrality of an impartial judge as it
requires judges to scrupulously guard against any
act that may be construed as an expression of
bias in favor of a litigant.
NOTE: Constant company with a lawyer tends to
breed intimacy and camaraderie to the point that
favors in the future may be asked from the judge
which he may find hard to resist. If a judge is seen
eating and drinking in public places with a lawyer
who has cases pending in his or her sala, public
suspicion may be aroused, thus tending to erode
the trust of litigants in the impartiality of the
judge (Padilla v. Zantua, G.R. No. 110990, October
23, 1994).
Q: Complainant Prosecutor filed an
administrative complaint against the
Sandiganbayan Justices for grave misconduct,
conduct unbecoming a justice, and conduct
grossly prejudicial to the interest of the
service. Allegedly, during a hearing, Justice
Ong uttered words like “We are playing Gods
here, we will do what we want to do, your
contempt is already out, we fined you eighteen
thousand pesos, even if you will appeal, by that
time I will be there, Justice of the Supreme
Court.” Also, he often asked lawyers from
which law schools they had graduated, and
frequently inquired whether the law school in
which Justice Hernandez had studied and
from which he had graduated was better than
his (Justice Ong’s) own alma mater. The
complainant opined that the query was
manifestly intended to emphasize that the San
Beda College of Law, the alma mater of Justice
Ong, and the UP College of Law, that of Justice
Hernandez, were the best law schools. On
another occasion in that hearing in Cebu City,
Justice Hernandez discourteously shouted at
Prosecutor HazelinaTujan-Militante, who was
then observing trial from the gallery and said
“You are better than Director Somido? Are you
better than Director Chua? Are you here to
supervise Somido? Your office is wasting funds
for one prosecutor who is doing nothing”.
Finally, Justice Hernandez berated Atty.
Pangalangan, the father of former UP Law
Dean Raul Pangalangan, and uttered words
 JUDICIAL ETHICS
such as “Just because your son is always
nominated by the JBC to Malacañang, you are
acting like that! Do not forget that the brain of
the child follows that of their (sic) mother.”
Should the respondent justices be held liable
for conduct unbecoming?
A: YES. Publicizing professional qualifications or
boasting of having studied in and graduated from
certain law schools, no matter how prestigious,
might have even revealed, on the part of Justice
Ong and Justice Hernandez, shows their bias for
or against some lawyers. Their conduct was
impermissible, consequently, for Section 3, Canon
4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the
Philippine Judiciary, demands that judges avoid
situations that may reasonably give rise to the
suspicion or appearance of favoritism or
partiality in their personal relations with
individual members of the legal profession who
practice regularly in their courts. Judges should
be dignified in demeanor, and refined in speech.
In performing their judicial duties, they should
not manifest bias or prejudice by word or
conduct towards any person or group on
irrelevant grounds. It is very essential that they
should live up to the high standards their noble
position on the Bench demands (Jamsani-
Rodriguez v. Ong, A.M. No. 08-19-SB-J, August 24,
2010).
Q: In a complaint filed by a former court
stenographer against Judge Agabas, he
contended that her appointment was not
renewed because the judge refused to sign the
requirements for the change of her
employment status from temporary to
permanent despite her two-year service.
Complainant states that many of her
officemates have questioned the “satisfactory”
rating given to her by the judge considering
their non-performing utility clerk received a
higher rating despite respondent judge’s
knowledge of the latter’s misdeeds. Worse,
she claims that the judge even recommended
the utility clerk for a position in the court of
her “kumare’. Is the judge guilty of favoritism?
A: NO. Complainant’s appointment was under
temporary status in view of her lack of two years
relevant experience which was required for the
position. Respondent judge, who is the immediate
supervisor of complainant, is in the best position
to observe the fitness, propriety and efficiency of
the employee for the position. It should be
impressed upon complainant that her
175
appointment in the judiciary is not a vested right.
It is not an entitlement that she can claim simply
for the reason that she had been in the service for
almost two years.
Since there is no proof that respondent judge
abused her position, the case against her should
be dismissed. Respondent judge should, however,
be reminded to be circumspect in her actuations
so as not to give the impression that she is guilty
of favoritism (Magtagñob v. Judge Gapas
Agbada. OCA IPI No. 11-3631-RTJ, January 16,
2013).
Q: In an action to prevent the condominium
developer from building beyond ten (10)
floors, Judge Cerdo rendered judgment in
favor of the defendant developer. The
judgment became final after the plaintiffs
failed to appeal on time. Judge Cerdo
thereafter purchased a condominium unit
from the developer. Did Judge Cerdo commit
any act of impropriety? (2013 Bar Question)
A: YES, Judge Cerdo is guilty of an act of
impropriety. It is desirable that he should, so far
as reasonably possible, refrain from all relations
which would normally tend to arouse the
suspicion that such relations warp or bias his
judgment, or prevent his impartial attitude of
mind in the administration of his judicial duties.
SEC. 4, CANON 4, NCJC
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
This rule rests on the principle that no judge
should preside in a case in which the judge is not
wholly free, disinterested, impartial and
independent.
SEC. 5, CANON 4, NCJC
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.
The reason is that judges are required to always
exhibit cold neutrality of an impartial judge.
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 Legal Ethics
NOTE: It was inappropriate for a judge to have
entertained a litigant in his house particularly
when the case is still pending before his sala (J.
King and Sons. v. Hontanosas, Adm. Matter No. RTJ-
03-1802, September 21, 2004).
SEC. 6, CANON 4, NCJC
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.
While judges are not expected to live a hermit-
like existence or cease functioning as citizens of
the Republic, they should remember that they do
not disrobe themselves of their judicial office
upon leaving their salas. In the exercise of their
civil liberties, they should be circumspect and
ever mindful that their continuing commitment to
upholding the judiciary and its values places upon
them certain implied restraints to their freedom.
Q: Judge Acuña was charged with improper
conduct for allegedly making humiliating
statements such as “putris,” and “putang-ina”.
Judge Acuña explained that those words are
only his favorite expressions and they are not
directed to any particular person. He also
explained that his behavior is justified by the
fact that he is still mourning the sudden
demise of his eldest son. Is the Judge guilty of
improper conduct?
A: YES. Judges are demanded to be always
temperate, patient and courteous both in the
conduct and language. Indeed, judges should so
behave at all times because having accepted the
esteemed position of a judge he ought to have
known that more is expected of him than
ordinary citizen. Here, the judge’s use of
humiliating and insensitive expressions like
“putris” and ”putang-ina” is improper as such
intemperate language detracts from how he
should conduct himself. Moreover, it does not
matter whether such expressions were directed
to a particular person, as they give the impression
of a person’s ill manners (Re: Anonymous
complaint Against Judge Acuña, A.M. No. RTJ-04-
1891, July 28, 2005).
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2018 GOLDEN NOTES
176
Q: An administrative complaint was filed
against Judge Amila because he used
derogatory and irreverent language towards
the complainant. The former in effect
maliciously besmirched the character of
complainant by calling her as “only a live-in
partner of Belot” and presenting her as an
opportunist and a mistress in an illegitimate
relationship. The judge also called her a
prostitute. Likewise, the judge accused the
complainant that the complaint was
motivated by insatiable greed. Will the case
prosper?
A: YES. The court holds that Judge Amila should
have been more circumspect in his language. 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
(Benancillo v. Judge Amila, A.M. No. RTJ-08-2149,
March 9, 2011).
SEC. 7, CANON 4, NCJCc
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.
This section should be read in conjunction with
Sec. 7 of the R.A. 6713 (Code of Conduct and
Ethical standards for Public Officials and
Employee), which prohibits certain personal
fiduciary and financial conflicts. A judge shall
refrain from financial and business dealings that
tend to reflect adversely on the court's
impartiality, interfere with the proper
performance of judicial activities, or increase
involvement with lawyers or persons likely to
come before the court.
SEC. 8, CANON 4, NCJC
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.
 JUDICIAL ETHICS
Prohibited acts by the rule
1. Judge’s act of using judicial office to
advance private interests.
NOTE: An RTC judge took advantage of his
position, by filing in the Makati court a
collection case in which he and his wife were
the complainants. The Court ruled that
although a stipulation in the contract gave
the judge, as creditor, choice of venue, the
judge had nonetheless fallen short of what is
expected of him as a judicial officer. This act
of the judge would lead the public, and in
particular the judge’s adversary, to suspect
that the judge would use the choice of venue
as a means to exert influence in favor of
himself (Javier v. De Guzman, A.M. No. RTJ-89-
380, December 19, 1990).
2. Judge’s act of giving impression that he can
be influenced to use the judicial office to
advance the private interests of others.
Q: Judge Escano was charged with allegedly
using court facilities (bulletin board) in
advertising for attractive waitresses and
cooks for employment in their restaurant
business. He also allowed the use of the court
address to receive applications as well as his
office in screening the applicants. The judge
explained that he merely wanted to give
assistance to his wife, and the posting of
advertisements as well as the conduct of
screening in his office is the most convenient
way for him considering the difficulty of
locating the residence. Did the judge commit
any unethical act?
A: YES. Judges shall not use or lend the prestige of
the judicial office to advance their private
interests for those of a member of a family. This is
so to avoid possible interference which may be
created by such business involvements in the
exercise of their duties which may tend to
corrode the respect and dignity of the court as
bastion of justice. Here, the act of the judge in
using the court facilities to promote family
business is improper (Dionisio v. Escano, A.M. No.
RTJ-98-1400, February 1, 1999).
Ticket fixing
177
It is misconduct in which judges impermissibly
take advantage of their public position to avoid
punishment for traffic violations.
SEC. 9, CANON 4, NCJC
Confidential information acquired by judges
in their judicial capacity shall not be used or
disclosed for any other purpose not related to
their judicial duties.
Court records or judicial records
Court records do not only refer to the orders,
judgments, or verdict of courts but comprise the
official collection of all papers, exhibits, pleadings
filed by the parties, all processes issued and
returns made thereon, appearances, and word-
for-word testimony which took place during the
trial and which are in the possession, custody, or
control of the judiciary or the courts (Hilado v.
Judge Reyes, G.R. No. 163155, July 21, 2006).
Q: Judge Lilagam was charged with improper
conduct for allowing his wife to have access to
court records. In his answer, the judge
admitted that he requested his wife who was
previously a legal researcher, to go over the
records and pinpoint problem areas and to
suggest measures to rectify the same and to
improve the system of case monitoring. Is the
judge guilty of improper conduct?
A: YES. Records of cases are necessarily
confidential, and to preserve their integrity and
confidentiality, access thereto ought to be limited
only to the judge, the parties or their counsel and
the appropriate court personnel in charge of the
custody of said records. Here, since Mrs. Lilagam
is not a court employee specifically in charge of
the custody of said records, the judge’s act of
allowing her to have access thereto is improper
as such would convey the impression that she is
the one who can influence the judge’s official
function (Gordon v. Lilagam, A.M. No. RTJ-00-1564,
July 26, 2001).
Acts of judges which would constitute a
criminal offense
The following, under Sec. 3[k] of R.A. 3019, and
under Art. 229 and 230 of the RPC, are violations
of the rule which also constitute criminal offense:
1. Divulging valuable information of a
confidential character, acquired by his office
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 Legal Ethics
or by him on account of his official position to
unauthorized persons, or releasing such
information in advance of its authorized
release date (R.A. 3019, Sec. 3[k]).
2. Reveal any secret known to him by reason of
his official capacity, or shall wrongfully
deliver papers or copies of papers of which
he may have charge and which should not be
published, shall suffer imprisonment
(Art.229, RPC).
3. Public officer revealing secrets of private
individual –Any public officer to whom the
secrets of any private individual shall become
known by reason of his office who shall
reveal such secrets (Art.230, RPC).
SEC. 10, CANON 4, NCJC
Subject to the proper performance of judicial
duties, judges may:
1. Write, lecture, teach and participate in
activities concerning the law, the legal system,
the administration of justice or related matter;
2. 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;
3. 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.
This section allows the judge to participate in
legal academia and public discourse on legal
matters with the proviso that there shall be no
interference in the performance of the judge’s
primary functions with respect to his or her
jurisdiction
This section’s tolerance of judicially-related
activities is limited by Sec. 12, Article VIII of the
Constitution, which prohibits judges from being
“designated to any agency performing quasi-
judicial or administrative functions”.
Judge cannot be a member of Provincial
Committee on Justice
Such membership would violate the
constitutional provision on the discharge by
members of the judiciary of administrative
functions in quasi-judicial or administrative
agencies. This does not mean, however, that
judges should adopt an attitude of monastic
insensibility or unbecoming indifference to the
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2018 GOLDEN NOTES
178
Provincial/City Committee on Justice. As
incumbent judges, they form part of the structure
of government. Even as non-members, judges
should render assistance to said committees to
help promote the laudable purposes for which
they exist, but only when such assistance may be
reasonably incidental to the fulfillment of their
judicial duties (In Re: Designation of Judge Rodolfo
U. Manzano, A.M. No. 88-7-1861-RTC, October 5,
1988).
NOTE: Under Sec. 10(c), Section 10, Canon 4, a
judge may engage in private business without the
written permission of the Supreme Court (Borre
v. Moya, A.M. No. 1765-CFI, October 17, 1980).
SEC. 11, CANON 4, NCJC
Judges shall not practice law whilst a holder
of judicial office.
The prohibition is based on sound reasons of
public policy, considering that the rights, duties,
privileges and functions of the office of an
attorney are inherently incompatible with the
high official functions, duties, powers, discretion
and privileges of a sitting judge. It also aims to
ensure that judges give their full time and
attention to their judicial duties, prevent them
from extending favors to their own private
interests, and assure the public of their
impartiality in the performance of their functions.
These objectives are dictated by a sense of moral
decency and desire to promote the public interest
(Decena v. Malanyaon, A.M. No. RTJ-10-2217, April
8, 2013).
NOTE: Sec. 35 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court
prohibits judges from engaging in the practice of
law or giving professional advice to clients.
Philippine courts not only prohibit judges from
overtly representing clients as counsel of record,
but also from acting more subtly in a way more
befitting an advocate than a judge.
The rule disqualifying a municipal judge from
engaging in the practice of law seeks to avoid the
evil of possible use of the power and influence of
his office to affect the outcome of the litigation
where he is retained as counsel. Compelling
reasons of public policy lie behind this
prohibition, and judges are expected to conduct
themselves in such a manner as to preclude any
suspicion that they are representing the interests
of party litigant (Dia-Anonuevo v. Bercacio, A.M.
No. 177-MTJ, November 27, 1975).
 JUDICIAL ETHICS
Q: Judge Malanyaon was present in the
hearing of her daughter to advise her on what
to do and say during the hearing, to the point
of coaching her. Was the act of the judge
considered contrary to Section 11, Canon 4 of
the NCJC, prohibiting judges from engaging in
the private practice of law or giving
professional advice to clients?
A: YES. The Court held that the judge engaged in
the private practice of law by assisting his
daughter at his wife’s administrative case,
coaching his daughter in making manifestations
or posing motions to the hearing officer, and
preparing the questions that he prompted to his
daughter. The term practice of law is not limited
to the conduct of cases in court or to
participation in court proceedings, but extends to
the preparation of pleadings or papers in
anticipation of a litigation, the giving of legal
advice to clients or persons needing the same, the
preparation of legal instruments and contracts by
which legal rights are secured, and the
preparation of papers incident to actions and
special proceedings (Decena v. Malanyaon, A.M.
No. RTJ-10-2217, April 8, 2013).
Q: Judge Lelina was administratively charged
for violation of Section 35, Rule 138 of the
Rules of Court and Rule 5.07, Canon 5 of the
Code of Judicial Conduct. He was then
preventively suspended by the Court on
account of an earlier administrative
complaint filed charging him with
harassment. Subsequently he appealed to the
Court to grant him the permission to practice
law during the remainder of his preventive
suspension or, if such cannot be granted, to
consider him resigned from the judiciary. It
turned out that before he filed the above-said
Manifestation, Appeal and Omnibus Motion,
Judge Lelina engaged in the private practice of
law. Did the judge commit any unethical act?
A: YES. Since Section 35, Rule 138 of the Rules of
Court and Section 11, Canon 4 of the New Code of
Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary do
not make any distinction in prohibiting judges
from engaging in the private practice of law while
holding judicial office, no distinction should be
made in its application. In the present case, Judge
Lelina, having been merely suspended and not
dismissed from the service, was still bound under
the prohibition (Binalay v. Lelina Jr, A.M. No. RTJ-
08-2132, July 31, 2009).
179
Q: In an extrajudicial settlement of the estate
of the late Juan Mayaman, the heirs requested
Judge Maawain, a family friend, to go over the
document prepared by a new lawyer before
they signed it. Judge Maawain agreed and
even acted as an instrumental witness. Did
Judge Maawain engage in the unauthorized
practice of law? Why? (2002 Bar)
A: NO. In the case of de Castro v. Capulong, (118
SCRA 5, 1982), the Supreme Court held that a
judge who merely acted as a witness to a
document and who explained to the party
waiving his rights of redemption over mortgaged
properties the consequences thereof, does not
engage himself in the practice of law. This
appears to be more applicable to the case of Judge
Maawain. He did not give professional advice in
anticipation of litigation. He was just asked to
review a deed of extrajudicial settlement of
estate. He signed merely as an instrumental
witness and not as a legal counsel. Besides, his act
was an isolated act.
SEC. 12, CANON 4, NCJC
Judges may form or join associations of judges
or participate in other organizations
representing the interests of judges.
This rule recognizes the difference between
membership in associations of judges and
membership in associations of other legal
professionals. While attendance at lavish events
hosted by lawyers might create an appearance of
impropriety, participation in judges-only
organizations does not.
Rules relating to prohibition against
accepting gifts, bequests, or loans
GR: Sections 13 and 14 of Canon 4 of the NCJC.
XPN: Section 15 of Canon 4 of the NCJC.
SEC. 13, CANON 4, NCJC
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, CANON 4, NCJC
Judges shall not knowingly permit court staff
or others subject to their influence, direction or
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 Legal Ethics
authority, to ask for, or accept, any gift,
bequest, loan or favor in relation to anything
done, to be done or omitted to be done in
connection with their duties or functions.
Sec 14 Canon 4 of NCJC assures that what the
judge cannot do directly (soliciting gifts), may not
be done indirectly through the use of employees
or staff members.
NOTE: Section 13 should be read in conjunction
with Section 7(d) of R.A. 6713 (Code of Conduct
and Ethical Standards for Public officials and
Employee) which provides that, public officials
and employees shall not solicit or accept, directly
or indirectly, any gift, gratuity, favor,
entertainment, loan or anything of money value
from any person in the course of their official
duties or in connection with any operation being
regulated by, or any transaction which may be
affected by the functions of their office.
Q: Judge Ganay received law books worth fifty
thousand pesos, cellular phones and monthly
cellular phone prepaid cards from the
property guardians of the late Rev. Fr.
Aspiras, who was then the ward of the court.
Further, he issued Orders directing the
manager of the PNB, La Union Branch to draw
checks amounting to thousands of pesos from
the account of the late Rev. Fr. Aspiras. Is
Judge Ganay guilty of impropriety?
A: YES. Respondent Judge Ganay clearly fell short
of the exacting standards set by the New Code of
Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary. His
acts constitute impropriety which the Court
cannot allow. Respondent Judge Ganay’s act of
issuing Orders to draw checks creates the
impression of impropriety and subjects the court
to suspicion of irregularities in the conduct of the
proceedings (Heirs of the late Rev. Fr. Jose
Aspirasv.JudgeGanay, A.M. No. RTJ-07-2055,
December 17, 2009).
Q: X was charged with grave threats before
the sala of Judge Elias Lelina. During the
pendency of the case, X offered a business
partnership to the daughter of Judge Lelina
who then accepted the same. Should the judge
be disciplined?
A: YES. Judges should not allow members of their
family to accept gifts nor favor in relation to
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2018 GOLDEN NOTES
180
anything done, to be done, or omitted to be done
by the judge in connection with the performance
of his official duties. Here, the judge’s act of
allowing his daughter to accept the business offer
of X despite knowledge of the possible intention
of the latter who has pending case in his sala is
improper (Dulay v. Lelina Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-99-
1516, July 14, 2005).
SEC. 15, CANON 4, NCJC
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
official duties or otherwise give rise to an
appearance of partiality.
Judges are allowed to accept token gifts, awards,
or benefits when given as a consequence of a
special occasion.
Gifts and grants allowed from foreign
countries
1. The acceptance and retention by a public
official or employee of a gift of nominal value
tendered and received as a souvenir or mark
of courtesy;
2. The acceptance by a public official or
employee of a gift in the nature of a
scholarship or fellowship grant or medical
treatment; or
3. The acceptance by a public official or
employee of travel grants or expenses for
travel taking place entirely outside the
Philippines (such as allowances,
transportation, food and lodging) of more
than nominal value if such acceptance is
appropriate or consistent with the interest of
the Philippines, and permitted by the head
office, branch or agency to which the judge
belongs (Sec. 7[d], R.A. 6713).
OTHER LAWS PROHIBITING THE ACCEPTANCE
OF GIFTS OR OTHER MATERIAL BENEFITS
Indirect and direct bribery of judges
Acceptance of gifts given by reason of the office of
the judge is indirect bribery (Art. 211, RPC) Acts
punishable in direct bribery are as follows:
 JUDICIAL ETHICS
a) By agreeing to perform an act which
constitutes a crime in connection with his
official duties for a consideration;
b) By accepting a gift in consideration of the
execution of an act which does not constitute
a crime in consideration with the
performance of his official duty; and
c) By refraining, from doing something which it
is his official duty to do, in consideration of
gift or promise (Art. 210, RPC).
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act: Judges
receiving gifts or other material benefits
GR: The judge is liable criminally for directly or
indirectly receiving gifts, presents or other
pecuniary or material benefit for himself or for
another under conditions provided in Section 2,
pars. b and c of the law.
XPN: Unsolicited gifts or presents of small value
offered or given as a mere ordinary token of
gratitude or friendship according to local custom
or usage (Section 14, RA 3019).
NOTE: Under Section 16 Article XI of the 1987
Constitution “No loan, guarantee or other form of
financial accommodation for any business
purpose may be granted, directly or indirectly, by
any government-owned or controlled bank or
financial institution to members of the Supreme
Court during their tenure.
It is a serious misconduct for a judge to receive
money from a litigant in the form of loans which
he never intended to pay back. Even if the judge
intends to pay, it is an act of impropriety to take a
loan from a party litigant. The judge could not be
wholly free from bias in deciding a case where his
lender is a party. A judge should always strive to
be free from suspicion and all forms of
improprieties (Ompoc v. Judge Torres, A.M. No.
MTJ-86-11, September 27, 1989).
EQUALITY
CANON 5
ENSURING EQUALITY OF TREATMENT TO
ALL BEFORE THE COURTS IS ESSENTIAL TO
THE DUE PERFORMANCE OF THE JUDICIAL
OFFICE.
A judge must be able to render substantial justice
and maintain public confidence in the judicial
181
system, by being aware of the diversity in society.
With that awareness, a judge should not yield to
first impression, reach hasty conclusions or
prejudge matters (Castillo v. Judge Juan, 62 SCRA
124).
SEC. 1, CANON 5, NCJC
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.
Judges should be mindful of the various
international instruments and treaties ratified by
the Philippines, which affirm the equality of all
human beings and establish a norm of non-
discrimination without distinction as to race, sex,
language, or religion. Judges should not yield to
first impression, reach hasty conclusions or
prejudge matters. They have a duty to ensure that
the minority status of a party plays no part in
their decisions.
SEC. 2, CANON 5, NCJC
Judges shall not, in the performance of judicial
duties, by words or conduct, manifests bias or
prejudice towards any person or group on
irrelevant grounds.
Magistrates of law must comport themselves at
all times in such a manner that their conduct, can
withstand the highest level of public scrutiny.
Judges should avoid private remarks, hasty
conclusions, or distasteful jokes that may give
even erroneous impressions of prejudice and lead
the public to believe that cases before them are
being prejudged.
SEC. 3, CANON 5, NCJC
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.
As arbiters of the law, judges should be
conscientious, studious, courteous, patient and
punctual in the discharge of their judicial duties,
recognizing that the time of litigants, witnesses
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 Legal Ethics
and counsel is of value. Judges should act with
decorum toward jurors, parties, court staff,
spectators, and alike.
Q: Judge Tormis made a comment in a certain
case to the effect that the same should be
dismissed as the act complained of was
already decriminalized by a special law.
Thereafter, Judge Navarro, who previously
handled the case before he was appointed as a
judge, barged into the office of Judge Tormis
and told the staff that their judge did not
know her law. Judge Tormis then retaliated by
saying that to her, the office of Judge Navarro
did not exist. Are the judges guilty of conduct
unbecoming of a judge?
A: YES. Judges, being dispensers of justice, should
not act in a way that would cast suspicion in
order to preserve faith in the administration of
justice. They should so behave to avoid poor
public impression on the judiciary. Here, the
judges act of fighting each other by uttering
derogatory remarks against each other is a
conduct unbecoming of a judge for which they
should be disciplined as their fight has impaired
the image of the judiciary (Navarro v. Tormis, A.M.
No. MTJ-00-1337, April 27, 2004).
Q: Atty. Quinto was the defense counsel in a
criminal case. He alleged that during the
hearing, he manifested that he was waiving
the presentation of evidence for the accused
and Judge Vios then allegedly got angry,
shouted and scolded him, stating that the
defense had no right to waive the
presentation of evidence. He did not even
listen to Atty. Quinto’s explanation and,
thereafter, compelled the latter to withdraw
his appearance as counsel of the accused,
under pain of contempt. In the presence of the
complainant, Judge Vios appointed a counsel
de oficio. May Judge Vios be held
administratively liable for compelling the
lawyer to withdraw as counsel for the
accused?
A: YES. A judge should avoid unconsciously
falling into the attitude of mind that the litigants
are made for the courts, instead of the courts for
the litigants. Here, the judge should be held liable
for misconduct when he threatened to punish
complainant for contempt of court if he would
refuse to withdraw his appearance, as counsel for
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2018 GOLDEN NOTES
182
the accused, when the latter insisted on waiving
the presentation of the evidence for the defense
(Atty. Quinto v. Judge Vios, A.M. No. MTJ-04-1551,
May 21, 2004).
SEC. 4, CANON 5, NCJC
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.
Duties of judges under this section
1. To ensure that court personnel under their
supervision do not discriminate by
dispensing special favors or disclosing
confidential information to any unauthorized
person, regardless of whether such
information came from authorized or
unauthorized sources; and
2. To organize their courts to ensure the
prompt and convenient dispatch of business
and should not tolerate misconduct by clerks,
sheriffs and other assistants who are
sometimes prone to expect favors or special
treatment due to their professional
relationship with the judge.
NOTE: All personnel involved in the dispensation
of justice should conduct themselves with a high
degree of responsibility (Mataga v. Rosete, A.M.
No.MTJ-03-1488, October 13, 2004).
SEC. 5, CANON 5, NCJC
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.
Judges should conduct proceedings in court with
dignity and in a manner that reflects the
importance and seriousness of proceedings. They
should maintain order and proper decorum in the
court (Rule 3.03, Canon 3, 1989 Code of Judicial
Conduct).
Judges have the duty to prevent lawyers from
abusing witnesses with unfair treatment.
Q: During the hearing of a case for statutory
rape filed against X, the lawyer was asking the
 JUDICIAL ETHICS
6-year-old victim to relate exactly and step by
step the sexual intercourse between her and
the accused. The lawyer was also asking
questions whether at the time of the alleged
rape, the accused’s penis was hard, and
whether at the time they were caught, the
accused was still pushing and pulling his penis
inside her vagina. Should the judge allow such
questions?
A: NO. The judge shall require lawyers to refrain
from making abusive and uncalled for queries.
Here, considering the fact that the victim of rape
is a child of tender years, there is more reason to
require the lawyer to be tactful. No woman
especially child of tender years would exactly
remember step by step the sexual intercourse in
the hands of the maniacal beast. Hence, all the
questions asked are excessive (People v. Boras,
G.R. No. 127495, December 22, 2000).
COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE
CANON 6
COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE ARE PRE-
REQUISITES TO THE DUE PERFORMANCE OF
JUDICIAL OFFICE.
A judge upon assumption to office, becomes the
visible representation of law and of justice, hence,
the Constitution (Section 7 (3), Article VIII),
prescribes that he must be a person of proven
competence as a requisite of his membership in
the judiciary.
A judge should be the epitome of competence,
integrity and independence to be able to render
justice and uphold public confidence in the legal
system. He must be conversant with basic legal
principles and well-settled doctrines. He should
strive for excellence and seek the truth with
passion (Rino v. Judge Cawaling, A.M. No. MTJ-02-
1391, June 7, 2004).
NOTE: As members of the judiciary, judges ought
to know the fundamental legal principles;
otherwise, they are susceptible to administrative
sanction for gross ignorance of the law (Heirs of
Piedad v. Estrella, A.M. No. RTJ-09-2170, December
16, 2009).
Q: Bayaca was convicted by Judge Ramos in a
criminal case for arson through reckless
183
imprudence and imposed upon him the
penalty of imprisonment, with all the
accessory penalties imposed by law in
addition to the payment of costs and damages.
On appeal, the RTC deleted the penalty of
imprisonment. However, Judge Ramos
subsequently issued a warrant of arrest and
commitment on final sentence which led to
complainant’s incarceration for 20 days. In his
comment, the judge clarified that his issuance
of the warrant of arrest against Bacaya was a
mistake done in good faith and that the same
was just a simple negligence. Should the judge
be disciplined?
A: YES. The judge was inexcusably negligent
when he issued a Warrant of Arrest and
Commitment to Final Sentence despite the
deletion by the appellate court of that portion of
the judgment imposing the penalty of
imprisonment. In the performance of his duties,
Judge Ramos failed to observe that diligence,
prudence and circumspection which the law
requires in the rendition of any public service. If
only Judge Ramos had exercised the requisite
thoroughness and caution, he would have noted
not only the modification of the monetary awards
by the appellate court, but also the deletion of the
penalty of imprisonment upon which the Warrant
of Arrest and Commitment to Final Sentence that
he signed was based (Bayaca v. Judge Ramos, A.M.
No. MTJ-07-1676, January 29, 2009).
SEC.1, CANON 6, NCJC
The judicial duties of a judge take precedence
over all activities.
Duties of a judge under this section
1. A judge must perform his judicial duties with
regard to a case where he is not disqualified
to do so and, may not divest himself of such
case if he is not so disqualified; and
2. A judge shall not inhibit himself simply to
avoid sitting on difficult or controversial
cases.
Q: An administrative case against Judge
Calderon was filed for incurring leaves of
absence for almost a straight period of 3
years. In his comment, he claimed that he was
suffering from a lingering illness of malignant
hypertension which was supported by
medical certificates prepared by his personal
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 Legal Ethics
doctor. However, when the court physician
conducted some tests, the same contradicted
the diagnosis given by the judge’s personal
doctor. Is Judge Calderon guilty of gross
misconduct?
A: YES. A judge shall be cautious of his court
duties. Here, the judge should have been aware
that, in frequently leaving his station, he has
caused great disservice to many litigants and has
denied them speedy justice (Re: Leaves of Absence
Without Approval of Judge Eric Calderon,
Municipal Trial Court Judge of Calumpit, Bulacan,
A.M. No. 98-8-105-MTC, January 26, 1999).
Q: Judge Limsiaco admitted that he decided an
ejectment case two (2) years after it was
declared submitted for resolution. He was
found guilty of gross ignorance of law and
procedure. Despite the extension of time
given, Judge Limsiaco failed to file his motion
for reconsideration and the required
explanation thrice. In another complaint
against him for Delay in the Disposition of a
Case, the OCA issued an order for him to file a
comment for the administrative complaint. Is
the judge administratively liable for unethical
conduct and gross inefficiency under the
provisions of the New Code of Judicial
Conduct, specifically, Sections 7 and 8 of
Canon 1, and Section 5 of Canon 6?
A: YES. A judge is the visible representation of the
law, and more importantly of justice; he or she
must, therefore, be the first to follow the law and
weave an example for the others to follow. For a
judge to exhibit indifference to a resolution
requiring him to comment on the accusations in
the complaint thoroughly and substantially is
gross misconduct, and may even be considered as
outright disrespect for the Court. The office of the
judge requires him to obey all the lawful orders of
his superiors. After all, a resolution of the
Supreme Court is not a mere request and should
be complied with promptly and completely. Such
failure to comply accordingly betrays not only a
recalcitrant streak in character, but has likewise
been considered as an utter lack of interest to
remain with, if not contempt of the judicial
system.
Moreover, the Court should not and will not
tolerate future indifference of respondents to
administrative complaints and to resolutions
requiring comment on such administrative
complaints. Under the circumstances, the conduct
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2018 GOLDEN NOTES
184
exhibited by Judge Limsiaco constitutes no less
than clear acts of defiance against the Court’s
authority. His conduct also reveals his deliberate
disrespect and indifference to the authority of the
Court, shown by his failure to heed our warnings
and directives. (Inoturan, v. Limsiaco, Jr., A.M. No.
MTJ-01-1362, February 22, 2011).
SEC. 2, CANON 6, NCJC
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.
Violations of this section often involve a failure to
keep records or handle funds in compliance with
court rules.
Q: Judge Daguman was charged with neglect of
duty in failing to retain a copy and to register
with the Local Civil Registrar a marriage
contract. The judge explained that his failure
was occasioned by circumstances beyond his
control. He averred that after the wedding
ceremony, the copies of the marriage contract
were left on top of his desk in his private
office where the ceremony was held but after
few days, when he gathered all the documents
relating to the marriage, the copies were
already missing. He also explained that he was
not able to inform the parties about the fact of
loss as they were already out of the country.
Should the judge be disciplined?
A: YES. A judge is charged with extra care in
ensuring that records of the cases and official
documents in his custody are intact. Moreover,
judges must adopt a system of record
management, and organize their dockets in order
to bolster the prompt and efficient dispatch of
business. Here, the circumstances show that the
loss of the documents was occasioned by the
carelessness on the part of the judge. The judge
should not have left such important documents in
his table to be gathered only after few days,
instead, he should have devised a filing system in
his court so as to avoid such incident (Beso v.
Daguman, A.M. No. MTJ-99-1211, January 28,
2000).
Q: X charged Judge Garillo with dishonesty
and corrupt practices for allegedly requiring
 JUDICIAL ETHICS
the former to deposit with the latter a sum of
money in connection with a pending case in
the latter’s sala but failed to give the
deposited sums of money to the adverse
party. It was also alleged that when X
demanded the return of money, the judge
failed to return the same despite his promise.
Is the judge guilty of serious misconduct?
A: YES. A judge should always be a symbol of
rectitude and propriety, and should always
comport himself in a manner that will raise no
doubt whatsoever about his honesty. Here, the
judge’s act of misappropriating the money
entrusted to him by litigants in connection with a
case pending in his court constitutes gross
misconduct. Moreover, the judge violated Circular
No. 50-95 which provides that, fiduciary
collections should be deposited with the Land
Bank of the Philippines. Because of his actuations,
the image of the judiciary was impaired (De
Pacete v. Judge Garillo, A.M. No. MTJ-03-1473,
August 20, 2003).
Judges should return records upon retirement
Since the proper and efficient management of the
court is the responsibility of the judge, he is the
one directly responsible for the proper discharge
of official functions. Thus, a judge is obliged to
return to the court the records of the cases filed
in his sala upon his retirement (Office of the Court
Administrator v. Retired Judge Carteciano, A.M. No.
MTJ-07-1664, February 18, 2008).
SEC. 3, CANON 6, NCJC
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 the training and
other facilities which should be made
available, under judicial control, to judges.
Service in the judiciary means a continuous study
and research on the law from beginning to end.
Judges are regarded as persons learned in the
law. The maxim “ignorance of the law excuses no
one” has special application to judges.
Though good faith and absence of malice or
corruption are sufficient defenses, such do not
apply where the issues are so simple and the
applicable legal principles evident and basic as to
185
be beyond possible margin of error (Corpus v.
Ochotoresa, A.M. No. RTJ 04-1861, July 30, 2004).
One who accepts the exalted position of a judge
owes the public and the Court the duty to
maintain professional competence at all times.
When a judge displays an utter lack of familiarity
with the rules, he erodes the confidence of the
public in the courts. A judge owes the public and
the Court the duty to be proficient in the law and
is expected to keep abreast of laws and prevailing
jurisprudence. Ignorance of the law by a judge
can easily be the mainspring of injustice
(Villanueva v.Judge Buaya, A.M. No. RTJ-08-2131,
November 22, 2010).
Q: Judge Delos Santos averred that Judge
Mangino of the MTC Tarlac approved the bail
bond for provisional liberty of the accused
Santos who was arrested and whose criminal
cases were pending in Angeles City before
him. It was also made to appear from the
contents of the said bond that the accused
appeared before notary public Ancanan in
Makati City. According to the accused, she
never went to Tarlac and appeared before
said Judge Mangino. She also alleged that she
never went to Makati City and appeared
before Notary Public Ancanan. Is Judge
Mangino guilty of grave misconduct?
A: YES. Judges should be diligently acquainted
with the law and jurisprudence. As an advocate of
justice and a visible representation of the law, a
judge is expected to keep abreast with and be
proficient in the application and interpretation of
the law. Here, by merely glancing at the bail bond
application, the judge ought to know that he had
absolutely no authority or jurisdiction to approve
the bail bond of the accused as the case was
pending with another court. By approving the bail
bond application, the judge failed to exert such
conscientiousness, studiousness, and
thoroughness expected and demanded of a judge
(Judge de los Santos v. Judge Mangino, A.M. No.
MTJ-03-1496, July 10, 2003).
SEC. 4, CANON 6, NCJC
Judges shall keep themselves informed about
relevant developments of international law,
including international conventions and other
instruments establishing human rights norms.
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 Legal Ethics
SEC. 5, CANON 6, NCJC
Judges shall perform all judicial duties,
including the delivery of reserved decisions,
efficiently, fairly and with reasonable
promptness.
A judge’s foremost consideration is the
administration of justice. Thus, he should follow
the time limit set for deciding cases. The
Constitution mandates that all cases or matters
filed before all lower courts shall be decided or
resolved within 90 days from the time the case is
submitted for decision. Judges are enjoined to
dispose of the court’s business promptly and
expeditiously and decide cases within the period
fixed by law. Failure to comply within the
mandated period constitutes a serious violation
of the constitutional right of the parties to a
speedy disposition of their cases. It also
undermines the people’s faith and confidence in
the judiciary, lowers its standards and brings it to
disrepute. Decision making, among other duties,
is the most important duty of a member of the
bench (Salvador v. Judge Limsiaco, A.M. No. MTJ-
08-1695, April 16, 2008).
The honor and integrity of the judicial system is
measured not only by the fairness and
correctness of decisions rendered, but also by the
efficiency with which disputes are resolved. The
mandate to promptly dispose of cases or matters
also applies to motions or interlocutory matters
or incidents pending before the magistrate.
Unreasonable delay of a judge in resolving a
pending incident is a violation of the norms of
judicial conduct and constitutes gross inefficiency
that warrants the imposition of an administrative
sanction against the defaulting magistrate (Office
of the Court Administrator v. Hon. Rosabella M.
Tormis, A.M. No. MTJ-12-1817, March 12, 2013).
Q: Cabasares filed a complaint for Malicious
Mischief against a certain Rodolfo Hebaya.
The case was subsequently assigned to Judge
Tandingco. As early as February 27, 2002, the
case had been submitted for decision, but the
judge did not pen a decision. He was charged
with violation of Section 15 (1), Article VIII of
the Constitution and Canon 3, Rule 3.05 of the
Code of Judicial Conduct. Is the judge guilty?
A: YES. Judges should meticulously observe the
periods prescribed by the Constitution for
deciding cases because failure to comply with the
said period transgresses the parties’
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
2018 GOLDEN NOTES
186
constitutional right to speedy disposition of their
cases. Thus, failure to decide cases within the
ninety (90)-day reglementary period may
warrant the imposition of administrative
sanctions on the erring judge. However, the
Court is not unmindful of circumstances that
justify the delay in the disposition of the cases
assigned to judges. When a judge sees such
circumstances before the reglementary period
ends, all that is needed is to simply ask the Court,
with the appropriate justification, for an
extension of time within which to decide the
case. Evidently, respondent Judge failed to do any
of these options (Antonio Y. Cabasares v. Judge
Filemon A. Tandinco, Jr. Municipal Trial Court in
Cities, 8th Judicial Region, Calbayog City, Western
Samar, A.M. No. MTJ-11-1793, October 19, 2011).
SEC. 6, CANON 6, NCJC
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.
Besides possessing the requisite learning in the
law, a magistrate must exhibit that hallmark
judicial temperament of utmost sobriety and self-
restraint which are indispensable qualities of
every judge (Rodriguez v. Bonifacio, A.M. No. RTJ-
99-1510, November. 6, 2000). A magistrate should
not descend to the level of a sharp-tongued, ill-
mannered petty tyrant by uttering harsh words,
snide remarks and sarcastic comments (Dela Cruz
v. Judge Carretas, A.M. No. RTJ-07-2043, September
5, 2007). Judges are required to always be
temperate, patient and courteous, both in conduct
and in language.
Q: Judge Belen was charged with conduct
unbecoming of a judge for humiliating,
demeaning and berating a young lawyer who
appeared in his sala. When the judge learned
that the lawyer was an alumnus of MCQU and
not of UP, the judge made the following
statement: “You’re not from UP. Then you
cannot equate yourself to me because there is
a saying and I know this not all law schools
are created equal, not all lawyers are created
equal despite what the Supreme Being stated
 JUDICIAL ETHICS
that we all are created equal in His form and
substance.” Should the judge be disciplined?
A: YES. The judge’s sarcastic, humiliating,
threatening and boastful remarks to a young
lawyer are improper. A judge must be aware that
an alumnus of a particular law school has no
monopoly of knowledge of the law. By hurdling
the Bar Examinations, taking of the Lawyer’s
oath, and signing of the Roll of Attorneys, a
lawyer is presumed to be competent to discharge
his functions and duties as, inter alia, an officer of
the court, irrespective of where he obtained his
law degree. For a judge to determine the fitness
or competence of a lawyer primarily on the basis
of his alma mater is clearly an engagement in an
argumentum ad hominem. As a judge, he must
address the merits of the case and not on the
person of the counsel. Judges must be that even
on the face of boorish behavior from those they
deal with, they ought to conduct themselves in a
manner befitting gentlemen and high officers of
the court (Atty. Mane v. Judge Belen, A.M. No.RTJ-
08-2119, June 30, 2008).
Q: Judge Ante Jr. was charged with grave
misconduct and acts unbecoming of a judge. It
was alleged that when the court employee
placed the docket book on top of the filing
cabinet, the same fell on the floor causing a
loud sound. Unexpectedly, the judge shouted
saying “Why did you throw the docket book?
You get out of here, punyeta, we don’t need
you!” The judge also threw a monobloc chair
at the court employee. Should the judge be
disciplined?
A: YES. The judge, for shouting invectives and
hitting complainant with a chair displayed a
predisposition to use physical violence and
intemperate language which reveals a marked
lack of judicial temperament and self-restraint -
traits which, aside from the basic equipment of
learning in the law - are indispensable qualities of
every judge (Briones v. Judge Ante Jr., A.M. No.MTJ-
02-1411, April 11, 2002).
SEC. 7, CANON 6, NCJC
Judges shall not engage in conduct
incompatible with the diligent discharge of
judicial duties.
A judge shall not accept duties that will interfere
with his devotion to the expeditious and proper
administration of his official functions
187
Q: Judge Bandong was accused of the
following: (1) watching television during
office hours; (2) predeliction to delegate
mediation of cases to court personnel; and (3)
delegation to Process Server Atienza the
performance of the functions and duties
pertaining to a Clerk III. Is she
administratively liable?
A:YES. Judge Bandong is guilty of conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service. For
a judge to allow an activity, and an unofficial one
at that, to take precedence over the conduct of
hearings is a patent derogation of Sections 1 and
2 of Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct.
Additionally, Judge Bandong’s habit of watching
television during office hours violates Section 7 of
the same Canon 6 which requires Judges “not to
engage in conduct incompatible with the diligent
discharge of judicial duties.”
Judge Bandong’s wanton disregard and mockery
of the proper procedure in mediation of cases
was tantamount to misconduct. While courts and
their personnel are enjoined to assist in the
successful implementation of mediation, A.M. No.
01-10-05-SC-PHILJA does not authorize them to
conduct mediation themselves (Re: Anonymous
Complaints against Hon. Dinah Evangeline
Bandong, A.M. No. RTJ-17-2507, October 10, 2009).
NOTE: When a judge, along with two other
people, acted as real estate agents for the sale of a
parcel of land for which he agreed to give a
commission of P100,000 to each of his
companions, and after the transaction was
completed only gave the complainants P25,000
each, the high Court held that the judge violated
the section of the prior Code of Judicial Conduct
(Catbagan v. Barte, A.M. No. MTJ-02-1452, April 6,
2005).
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS
FACULTY OF CIVIL LAW
 Legal Ethics
branch 19, Cagayan De Oro City A.M. No. Rtj-01-
DISCIPLINE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE 1657, 23 February 2004, en banc).
JUDICIARY

Power to discipline members of the bench DISCIPLINE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE

The Supreme Court shall have the administrative
supervision over all courts and the personnel
(Section 6, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution).
The Court en banc has the power to discipline all
judges of lower courts including justices of the
Court of Appeals (Section 11, Art. VIII, 1987
Constitution).
Disbarment of judges and justices
Judges and justices, being lawyers, may also be
disbarred, if found guilty of certain crimes and/or
other causes for disbarment under the Rules of
Court.
SUPREME COURT
Impeachment
It is a constitutional process of removing public
servants from office as an assurance against
abusive officials in the country (Impeachment
Primer, Official Gazette, 2012).
Object of impeachment
The object of impeachment is solely to determine
whether the official is worthy of the trust
conferred upon him/her. It is not a determination
of criminal guilt or innocence as in criminal case
(Ibid.).

Condition before Justices of the Supreme The nature of impeachment proceedings against
Court may be disbarred SC justices is “sui generis” or “a class of its own”.

Justices of the Supreme Court in order to be Grounds for impeachment

disbarred must first be impeached in accordance
with the Constitution. 1. Treason;
2. Bribery;
NOTE: While it is the duty of the court to 3. Other High Crimes;
investigate and determine the truth behind every 4. Graft and Corruption; and
matter in complaints against judges and other 5. Betrayal of Public Trust (Sec. 2 Art. XI, 1987
court personnel, it is also their duty to see to it Constitution)
that they are protected and exonerated from
baseless administrative charges. The Court will Impeachable officers
not shirk from its responsibility of imposing
discipline upon its magistrates, but neither will it 1. The President;
hesitate to shield them from unfounded suits that 2. Vice-President;
serve to disrupt rather than promote the orderly 3. Members of the Supreme Court;
administration of justice (Ocenar v. Judge 4. Members of the Constitutional Commissions;
Mabutin, A.M. No. MTJ 05- 1582, February 28, and
2005). 5. Ombudsman

A judge may be disciplined for acts committed
before his appointment to the judiciary
It is settled that a judge may be disciplined for
acts committed prior to his appointment to the
judiciary. In fact, even the new Rule itself
recognizes this, as it provides for the immediate
forwarding to the Supreme Court for disposition
and adjudication of charges against justices and
judges before the IBP, including those filed prior
to their appointment to the judiciary (Heinz Heck
vs. Judge Anthony E. Santos, regional trial court,
All other public officers and employees may be
removed from office as provided by law, but not
by impeachment (Sec. 2 Art. XI, 1987
Constitution).
The Philippine Congress holds the sole power in
impeachment process.
1. House of Representatives - initiates all cases
of impeachment.
2. Senate – tries and decides on all the cases.

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

2018 GOLDEN NOTES
188