CANON 3

New Code of Judicial Conduct for the

Philippine Judiciary of 2004

GROUP 3
Idolor, Largo, Macabebe, Mangubat
 SECTION 5 (e)

The judge's ruling in a lower court is the subject of review;

 Sandoval vs CA (G.R. No. 106657, August 1, 1996)

 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.
 SECTION 5 (e)

 The Supreme Court 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.”
 Judges shall disqualify themselves from participating in any proceedings
… in which it may appear to a reasonable observer that they are unable to
decide the matter impartially (Section 5, Canon 3).
 SECTION 5 (e)

 Assuming Section 5 (e) of Canon 3 does not exist, how would an appellate
judge review his decision on a case he previously tried?
 SECTION 5 (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;

 The Supreme Court has admonished judges for participating in proceedings

in which one of the parties or counsel is a relative within the sixth or fourth
civil degrees, respectively.
 SECTION 5 (f)

Villaluz vs. Mijares Hurtado vs. Judalena Perez vs. Suller

(A.M. No. RTJ-98-1402) (G.R. No. L-40603) (A.M. No. MTJ-94-436)

A judge was fined for A preliminary injunction A judge improperly

presiding over a petition
for correction of a birth
record where the
petitioner was the judge’s
daughter.
issued by a judge in favor presided over the
of his sister before preliminary investigation*
inhibiting himself was of a criminal complaint
found reprehensible wherein the complaining
witness was his nephew.

*NOTE: Conducting preliminary investigation may not be construed strictly as "sitting in a case”.
 SECTION 5 (f)

 Garcia vs. De La Pena (A.M. No. MTJ-92-637)

 A Municipal TrialCourt judge was dismissed for taking cognizance of a
criminal complaint lodged by his brother, and issuing a warrant of arrest.
 SECTION 5 (f)

“… no judge should preside in a case in which he is not wholly free,

disinterested, impartial and independent. A judge has both the duty of
rendering a just decision and the duty of doing it in a manner completely
free from suspicion as to its fairness and as to his integrity. The law
conclusively presumes that a judge cannot objectively or impartially sit in
such a case and, for that reason, prohibits him and strikes at his authority
to hear and decide it, in the absence of written consent of all parties
concerned*. The purpose is to preserve the people's faith and confidence
in the courts' justice.”
 SECTION 5 (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.

 This is to prevent situations in which a judge must consider familial

interests in the conflicts before him or her.
 SECTION 5 (g)

 If the public is aware of a family member’s financial interest, may

it question the judge’s impartiality?
 Ifthe case had already been decided, may a party raise on appeal
the judge’s impartiality? (Government vs. Heirs of Abella, 49
Phil. 374)
 SECTION 6

A judge disqualified as stated above may, instead of withdrawing from the

proceeding, disclose on the records the basis of disqualification. If, based on
such disclosure, the parties and lawyers, independently of the judge's
participation, all agree in writing that the reason for 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.
 SECTION 6

Despite of the existence of reason for disqualification, a judge may still

participate in a proceeding.

Requisites of Remittal of Disqualification:

1. the basis for disqualification shall be disclosed to the parties-in-
litigation; and
2. both parties agreed in writing that the reason for disqualification is
not material or substantial.
 SECTION 6

 Is it sufficient that the judge would state only "personal reasons"

as the ground for inhibiting themselves even if no party questions
it?
 What will be the effect if both parties agreed in writing that the
“personal reason” is not a material or substantial ground for
disqualification?