THE CLIENTS

Nature of the lawyer client relationship:

1.
2.
3.

Strictly personal
Highly confidential
Fiduciary

Canon 14
The lawyer shall not refuse his services to the
needy.
14.01 Shall not decline.
14.02 Shall not decline request from IBP.
14.03 May refuse:
1.
2.

Incapable
Conflict of interest

16.03 Lawyer shall deliver funds when demanded,

but has lien.
Charging lien Active lien which is an equitable right
for money due to a lawyer for his services, with due
notice to client and adverse party, secured to him
out of a money judgement only.
Charging lien terminates lawyer - client relationship.
Charging lien survives the clients death.
16.04 Lawyer shall not borrow or lend money to
client.
Except: If the clients interest is protected. Ex.
Clients bank.
Champertous contracts Lawyer pays for all
expenses. Payment in kind.
Canon 17

14.04 Same standard of service as to paying client.

Lawyer owes fidelity to the clients cause.

RA 9999 Allowable deduction from his gross

income. Actual cost or 10% of total, whichever is
lower.

Lawyer owes devotion loyalty to the client, during

and after the case. (Canon 15)

PD 543 Municipal judges and lawyers as counsel de

officio for indigent clients.
Amicus curae Friend of the court.
Canon 15
Observe Candor, Fairness and Loyalty in all his
Dealings and Transactions with his Clients.
15.01 Conflict of interest shall be ascertained ASAP.
15.02 Rules on privileged communication.
Confidentiality Rule
Exceptions:
1.
2.

Client accuses lawyer

Future crime

RPC Art. 209 Betrayal of trust by an attorney.

15.03 Shall not represent with conflicting interest.
Except with a written consent from the parties.
The lawyer shall name all his clients when
demanded.
Exception: If it implicates the client.
15.04 Mediator with written consent from parties.
15.05 Candid and honest opinion of the merits.
15.06 No Influence peddling.
15.07 Impress compliance of laws and fairness on
clients.

Not a good practice to fight former clients. (Canon 6)

Loyalty to fiduciary relationship and secrecy. (Canon
15 and 16)
Canon 18
Shall serve his client with competence and
diligence.
18.01 Shall not handle if not capable. May refer a
lawyer.
18.02 Shall not handle if unprepared.
18.03 Negligence.
Lawyers negligence
General rule: Client is bound by the lawyers
conduct, except:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Outright deprivation of clients rights

Error is purely technical
Ignorance, incompetence and inexperience
Gross negligence
Lack of acquaintance with procedure

Some examples of negligence:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

Failure to ask for additional time

Client has become insolvent
Failure to ascertain date
Failure to file briefs
Failure to attend trial without reason
Failure to notify client of schedule
Failure to notify lawyers change of address
Failure to present evidence
Failure to file petition for review
Failure to do anything after acceptance of
fee

15.08 Specify if acting as a lawyer or in another

capacity.

18.04 Keep the client informed within a reasonable

time.

Canon 16

Canon 19

Shall hold in trust all moneys and properties.

Lawyer shall represent with zeal within the

bounds of the law.

16.01 Shall account.

19.01 Only fair and honest means.
16.02 No co-mingling of funds.
Negative pregnant improper.

Shall not file baseless cases against adversaries.

Blackmail Extortion of money with threats of
exposure.

Judicial action to recover attys fees:

1.
2.

In the same case: To avoid multiplicity of

suits
In a separate civil action

19.02 Shall not permit client to perpetuate fraud.

Client shall not lose everything for attys fees.
19.03 Shall not allow the client to dictate
procedure.

Canon 21

If clients requests are proper and lawful, lawyer

must oblige.

Shall preserve confidence and secrets even

after lawyer client relationship is terminated.

Ex: Compromise, settle (encouraged by lawyer),

appeal.

Rationale: To encourage clients to tell all the facts of

the case.

Canon 20

21.01 Shall not reveal the confidences and secrets:

Lawyer shall charge only fair and reasonable

fees.

Except when:

20.01 Guidelines for Quantum Meruit:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Time spent and extent of services

Novelty and difficulty
Importance of subject matter
Skill demanded
Probability of losing other employment
Schedule of fees of IBP chapter
Amount involved and benefits resulting
Certainty of compensation
Character of the employment,
occasional/established
10. Professional standing of lawyer
11. Capacity of client
Quantum Meruit As much as a lawyer deserves.
Modes of Payment:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Fixed or absolute fee

Contingent fee
Per appearance, fixed fee
Per hour
Per piece of work
Combination of above

Contingent contract lawyers fee is usually a fixed

percentage of what may be recovered in the action.
Valid unlike champertous.
Retainer fee Fee to secure the lawyers future
services.
Employment may be oral or express.
Skill is not measured by income.
Unauthorized counsel, not entitled to attys fees.
Estate is allowed to recover attys fees in case of
death of lawyer.
20.02 In case of referral, with clients consent,
attys fees are in proportion to work done.
Compensation for merely recommending another.
Improper.
Attys fees for services shared to non-lawyers.
Prohibited.

1.
2.
3.

Authorized by the client

Required by law
Required by judicial action ex. Collecting
fees

Communication made by prospective clients also

covered.
Communication may be verbal, written or other
means.
21.02 Shall not use information acquired to the
disadvantage of his client. Or to his or a third
persons advantage.
Violation of rule is breach of trust.
21.03 Written consent of client is required before
lawyer can share information from files to others.
21.04 Disclosure to firm allowed. Unless prohibited
by client.
21.05 Duty extends to lawyers staff. Lawyer is
liable for staff.
21.06 Shall avoid indiscreet conversations about
client.
21.07 Shall not reveal consultations, except to
avoid possible conflict of interest.
Canon 22
Lawyer shall withdraw services only for good
cause and upon notice.
22.01 Lawyer may withdraw only when:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Client pursues illegal course of conduct

Client insists on lawyers conduct violative
of Canons
Inability to work with co-counsel
Mental and physical condition deters lawyer
Client deliberately fails to pay fees
Lawyer is elected or appointed to public
office
Other similar cases

Appearance Submitting oneself, as plaintiff or

complainant, personally or thru counsel, to the
jurisdiction of the court:

Amicus curae is not entitled to attys fees.

20.03 Shall not accept fee from anyone other than
the client.

1.
2.

General appearance
Special appearance defendant appears
solely for the purpose of objecting the
jurisdiction of the court.

Exception: Unless with consent from the client.

20.04 Shall avoid controversies concerning
compensation.

Lawyer who appears in lower court is presumed

same on appeal.

Lawyer/s must make a formal Notice of Appearance,

signed by client and first lawyer, in case latter is
absent.
Judge may require lawyer to prove his authority to
appear.
Death of client terminates lawyer client
relationship.
Duty of lawyer to report the death of the client.

c.

QUALIFICATIONS OF MTC JUDGES

a.
b.
c.

Death of lawyer terminates lawyer client

relationship.
Exception: If the firm represents the client.
Dissolution of firm does not terminate lawyer client
relationship.
Right of client to terminate lawyer client
relationship is absolute. But not vice versa.
Withdrawal of counsel, mechanics:
1.
2.
3.

Written consent of client

If no consent, must make an application to
the court
Must be made on record

22.02 Upon withdrawal, subject to a retainer lien,

lawyer shall turn over all documents and properties
to client. Lawyer shall cooperate with successor.
Charging lien Active lien, which is an equitable right
for money due to a lawyer for his services, with due
notice to client and adverse party, secured to him
out of a money judgement only.
Retaining lien Passive lien, of retaining properties
and papers until he is paid, exercised before
judgement and may be with notice to the client.

JUDICIAL ETHICS
Branch of moral science which treats of the right and
proper conduct to be observed by all judges and
magistrates in trying and deciding controversies
brought to them for adjudication which conduct must
be demonstrative of impartiality, integrity,
competence, independence and freedom from
improprieties.
JUDGE A public officer who, by virtue of his office, is
clothed with judicial authority, a public officer
lawfully appointed to decide litigated questions in
accordance with law.
DE JURE JUDGE One who is exercising the office of
judge as a matter of right; an officer of a court who
has been duly and legally appointed, qualified and
whose term has not expired.
DE FACTO JUDGE An officer who is not fully invested
with all the powers and duties conceded to judges,
but is exercising the office of a judge under some
color of right.
QUALIFICATIONS OF SC MEMBERS
a.
b.
c.

Natural born citizen

At least 40 years of age
At least 15 years a judge of a lower court or
engaged in the practice of law [Sec. 7 (1),
Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution]

QUALIFICATIONS OF RTC JUDGES

a.
b.

Filipino citizenship (natural born or

naturalized)
At least 35 years of age

At least 10 years has been engaged in the

practice of law in the Philippines or has held
public office requiring admission to the
practice of law as an indispensable requisite

Filipino citizenship (natural born or

naturalized)
At least 30 years of age;
For at least five years has been engaged in
the practice of law in the Philippines or has
held public office requiring admission to the
practice of law as an indispensable
requisite.

NEW CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT ( BANGALORE

DRAFT)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Independence
Integrity
Impartiality
Propriety
Equality
Competence and Diligence

INDEPENDENCE Canon 1
Judicial independence is a prerequisite 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.
MEMORY AID FOR SECTIONS UNDER CANON 1:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.

Independent judicial function (Sec. 1)

Outside pressure (Sec. 2)
Influencing outcome of litigation (Sec. 3)
Influence on judicial conduct (Sec. 4)
Independence from executive and
legislative (Sec. 5)
Independence from society & particular
parties (Sec. 6)
Safeguards for judicial independence (Sec.
7)
Promote Public confidence (Sec. 8)

INDEPENDENT JUDICIAL FUNCTION Sec. 1 Judges

shall exercise the judicial function independently on
the basis of their assessment of the facts and in
accordance with a conscientious understanding of
the law, free of any extraneous influence,
inducement, pressure, threat or interference, direct
or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason.
A judge found defendants guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of Rape with Homicide. However,
he sentenced the accused with reclusion perpetua
instead of the death. [People v. Veneracion (1995)]
OUTSIDE PRESSURE Sec. 2 In performing judicial
duties, Judges shall be independent from judicial
colleagues in respect of decisions which the judge is
obliged to make independently.
Respondents admission that he granted bail to an
accused upon the request of a Congressman, despite
his belief that the evidence of guilt against said is
strong. [Tahil v. Eisma (1975)]
INFLUENCING OUTCOME OF LITIGATION Sec. 3
Judges shall refrain from influencing in any manner
the outcome of litigation or dispute pending before
another court or administrative agency.
Interference by members of the bench in pending
suits with the purpose of influencing the course or
the result of the litigation subvert the independence
of the judiciary. [Sabitsana, Jr. v. Villamor, 202 SCRA
445 (1991)]

INFLUENCE ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT Sec. 4 Judges

shall not allow family, social or other relationships to
influence judicial conduct or judgment. The prestige
of judicial office shall not be used or lent to advance
the private interests of others, nor convey or permit
others to convey the impression that they are in a
special position to influence the judge.
Judges family includes a judges spouse, son,
daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, and any other
relative by consanguinity or affinity within the sixth
civil degree, or person who is a companion or
employee of the judge and who lives in the judges
household. [Definitions, Bangalore Draft]
Constant company with a lawyer tends to breed
intimacy and camaraderie to the point that favors in
the future may be asked from respondent judge
which he may find hard to resist.[Padilla v. Zantua
(1994)]
INDEPENDENCE FROM EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE
Sec. 5. Judges shall not only be free from
inappropriate connections with and influence by the
executive and legislative branches of government
but must also appear to be free therefrom to a
reasonable observer.
Justice Sabio continued to entertain a call from his
brother, who also happens to be an officer of the
executive branch, despite realizing that the
conversation was going to involve a pending case. If
a magistrate's actions allow even just the
appearance of being influenced, it is deemed a
violation. [Re: Letter of Presiding Justice Conrado M.
Vasquez, Jr. A.M. No. 08-8-11-CA]
INDEPENDENCE FROM SOCIETY AND PARTICULAR
PARTIES Sec. 6. Judges shall be independent in
relation to society in general and in relation to the
particular parties to a dispute which he or she has to
adjudicate.
[Respondents] act of sending a member of his staff
to talk with complainant and show copies of his draft
decisions, and his act of 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. Rosete
(2004)]
SAFEGUARDS FOR JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE Sec. 7.
Judges shall encourage and uphold safeguards for
the discharge of judicial duties in order to maintain
and enhance the institutional and operational
independence of the judiciary.
Inability to decide a case despite the ample time
prescribed is inexcusable, constitutes gross
inefficiency, and warrants administrative sanction of
the defaulting judg[Salud v. Alumbres, (2003)]
PROMOTE PUBLIC CONFIDENCE Sec. 8. Judges shall
exhibit and promote high standards of judicial
conduct in order to reinforce public confidence in the
judiciary which is fundamental to the maintenance of
judicial independence.
[A judge] should always be imbued with a high sense
of duty and responsibility in the discharge of his
obligation to promptly and properly administer
justice. He must view himself as a priest for the
administration of justice is akin to a religious
crusade. [Dimatulac et al v. Villon, (1998)]

a.
b.
c.

Conduct above reproach (Sec. 1)

Reaffirm peoples faith (Sec. 2)
Disciplinary action (Sec. 3)

CONDUCT ABOVE REPROACH Sec. 1 Judges shall

ensure that not only is their conduct above reproach,
but that it is perceived to be so in the view of a
reasonable observer.
When a judge becomes the transgressor of any law
which he is sworn to apply, he places his office in
disrepute, encourages disrespect for the law and
impairs public confidence in the integrity and
impartiality of the judiciary itself. It is therefore
paramount that a judge's personal behavior both in
the performance of his duties and daily life, be free
from any appearance of impropriety as to be beyond
reproach. [Tan v. Rosete (2004)]
Judges have been penalized for:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.

Demanding and/or accepting bribes

Fraternizing with litigants and/or lawyers
Altering orders
Delay in rendering
Sexual harassment of employees
Ignorance of the law
Keeping and/or flaunting a mistress
Inebriated behavior
Frequenting casinos and cock fights
Incompetence
Conducting hearings in their residence (l)
Using intemperate language

Ignorance of the law is a mark of incompetence. A

judge is either too incompetent and undeserving of
the position and title he holds, or he is too vicious
that the oversight or omission was deliberately done
in bad faith and in grave abuse of judicial authority.
In both instances, the judge's dismissal is in order.
[Macalintal v. Teh (1997)]
REAFFIRM PEOPLES FAITH Sec. 2 The behavior and
conduct of judges must reaffirm the people's faith in
the integrity of the judiciary. Justice must not merely
be done but must also be seen to be done.
"Justice must not merely be done but must also be
seen to be done. A judge's official conduct and his
behavior in the performance of judicial duties should
be free from the appearance of impropriety and must
be beyond reproach. 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. [Sibayan-Joaquin v.
Javellana (2001]
A judge must not only be honest but also appear to
be so; not only be a good judge, but also a good
person. [Dawa v. De Asa (1998)]
There is no dichotomy of morality: a public official is
also judged by his private morals. [Castillo v. Calanog
(1991)]
DISCIPLINARY ACTION Sec. 3 Judges should take or
initiate appropriate disciplinary measures against
lawyers or court personnel for unprofessional
conduct of which the judge may have become aware.

Integrity is essential not only to the proper discharge

of the judicial office but also to the personal
demeanor of judges.

Leniency provides the court employees the

opportunity to commit minor transgressions of the
laws and slight breaches of official duty ultimately
leading to vicious delinquencies. The slightest breach
of duty by and the slightest irregularity in the
conduct of court officers and employees detract from
the dignity of the courts and erode the faith of the
people in the judiciary. [Buenaventura v. Benedicto
(1971)]

MEMORY AID FOR SECTIONS UNDER CANON 2

IMPARTIALITY Canon 3

INTEGRITY Canon 2

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.
MEMORY AID FOR SECTIONS UNDER CANON 3
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.

Judicial duties free from bias (Sec. 1)

Promote confidence, impartiality (Sec. 2)
Minimize instances of disqualification (Sec.
3)
Public comments; pending and impending
case (Sec. 4)
Disqualifications (Sec. 5)
Remittal of disqualifications (Sec.6)

JUDICIAL DUTIES FREE FROM BIAS Sec. 1 Judges

shall perform their judicial duties without favor, bias
or prejudice.
To sustain a claim of bias or prejudice, the resulting
opinion must be based upon an extrajudicial source:
that is, some influence other than the facts and law
presented in the courtroom. In the United States, this
is known as the Extra-Judicial Source Rule.
Because allegations of bias are quite serious, the
person bringing the allegation must prove bias
sufficient to require inhibition (also called recusal or
disqualification) with clear and convincing evidence.
Bare allegations of partiality and prejudgment will
not suffice. [Dimo Realty & Dev. Inc. v. Dimaculangan
(2004)]
A judge's conduct must be clearly indicative of
arbitrariness and prejudice before it can be
stigmatized as biased and partial. [Cruz v. Iturralde,
(2003)]
PROMOTE CONFIDENCE, IMPARTIALITY Sec. 2
Judges shall ensure that his or her conduct both in
and out of court, maintains and enhances the
confidence of the public, the legal profession and
litigants in the impartiality of the judge and of the
judiciary.
This provision is designed to maintain and improve
public confidence in the entire judiciary as an
impartial dispenser of justice.
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.CA (2001)]
A judge should behave at all times in a way that
promotes public confidence in the integrity and
impartiality of the judiciary. The appearance of bias
or prejudice can be as damaging to public confidence
and the administration of justice as actual bias or
prejudice. [Montemayor v. Bermejo, Jr. (2004)]
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
judges unwelcome persistence makes the judge
vulnerable to suspicions of favoritism. [Montemayor
v. Bermejo, Jr. (2004)]
MINIMIZE INSTANCES OF DISQUALIFICATIONS Sec. 3
Judges shall, so far as is reasonable, so conduct
themselves as to minimize the occasions on which it
will be necessary for them to be disqualified from
hearing or deciding cases.
Judges may, in their exercise of sound discretion,
restrict themselves voluntarily from sitting in a case,
but such a decision should be based on good, sound
or ethical grounds, or for just and valid reasons. It is
not enough that a party casts some tenuous
allegations of partiality at the judge. No less than

imperative is that it is the judge's sacred duty to

administer justice without fear or favor.
The majority view is that the rule of disqualification
of judges must yield to demands of necessity. Simply
stated, the rule of necessity means that a judge is
not disqualified to sit in a case if there is no other
judge available to hear and decide the case. For
example, members of the Supreme Court were
entitled to adjudicate the validity of a statute placing
a limit of 5 percent in the costs of living increase for
judges, where it was apparent that all state judges
had at least an involuntarily financial interest in the
case. In other words, when all judges would be
disqualified, disqualification will not be permitted to
destroy the only tribunal with power in the premises.
The doctrine operates on the principle that a basic
judge is better than no judge at all. Under such
circumstances, it is the duty of the disqualified judge
to hear and decide the controversy, however
disagreeable it may be. [Parayno v. Meneses, (1994)]
PUBLIC COMMENTS; PENDING AND IMPENDING CASE
Sec. 4. Judges shall not knowingly, while a
proceeding is before or could come before them,
make any comment that might reasonably be
expected to affect the outcome of such proceeding or
impair the manifest fairness of the process. Nor shall
judges make any comment in public or otherwise
that might affect the fair trial of any person or issue.
Judges should avoid side remarks, hasty conclusions,
loose statements or gratuitous utterances that
suggest they are prejudging a case.
The Supreme Court has recently held that judges and
justices are not disqualified from participating in a
case simply because they have written legal articles
on the law involved in the case. [Chavez v. Public
Estates Authority (2003)]
DISQUALIFICATIONS Sec. 5 Judges shall disqualify
themselves from participating in any proceedings in
which they are unable to decide the matter
impartially or in which it may appear to a reasonable
observer that they are unable to decide the matter
impartially. Such proceedings include, but are not
limited to, instances where:
a.

b.
c.
d.

e.
f.

g.

The judge has actual bias or prejudice

concerning a party or personal knowledge of
disputed evidentiary facts concerning the
proceedings;
The judge previously served as a lawyer or
was a material witness in the matter in
controversy;
The judge, or a member of his or her family,
has an economic interest in the outcome of
the matter in controversy;
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;
The judge's ruling in a lower court is the
subject of review;
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
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

Grounds for Disqualification and Inhibition of Judges

under the Rules of Court Mandatory or Compulsory
Disqualification [Rule 131, ROC]

a.
b.
c.
d.

He or his wife or his child is pecuniarily

interested as heir, legatee, creditor or
otherwise;
Relation to either party within the sixth
degree of consanguinity or affinity or to
counsel within the 4th civil degree
When he has been an executor, guardian,
administrator, trustee or counsel;
When he has presided in an inferior court
where his ruling or decision is subject to
review.

g.

Be informed of his financial interests (Sec.

7)
h. Influence of Judicial Conduct (Sec. 8)
i.
Confidential Information (Sec. 9)
j.
Engage in other activities (Sec. 10)
k. Practice of Profession (Sec. 11)
l.
Form associations (Sec. 12)
m. Gifts, Requests, Loans (Sec. 13)
n. Gifts, Requests, Loans by staff (Sec. 14)
o. Permissible tokens and awards (Sec. 15)
AVOIDANCE OF IMPROPRIETY Sec. 1 Judges shall
avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety
in all of their activities.

Voluntary Inhibition
A judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion
disqualify himself, for just and valid reasons other
than those mentioned above. [Rule 137, Section 1]
This leaves the discretion to the judge to decide for
himself questions as to whether he will desist from
sitting in 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
the 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. Judges 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.
The filing of an administrative case against a judge
does not disqualify him from hearing a case. The
court has to be shown other than the filing of
administrative complaint, act or conduct of judge
indicative of arbitrariness or prejudice before the
latter being branded as the stigma of being biased or
partial. [Lorenzo v. Marquez (1988)]
REMITTAL OF DISQUALIFICATIONS Sec. 6 A judge
disqualified as stated above may, instead of
withdrawing from the proceeding, disclose on the
records the basis of disqualification. If based on such
disclosure, the parties and lawyers independently of
the judge's participation, all agree in writing that the
reason for the inhibition is immaterial or
unsubstantial, the judge may then participate in the
proceeding. The agreement signed by all parties and
lawyers shall be incorporated in the record of the
proceedings.
The decision to continue hearing the case, despite
the existence of reasons for disqualification should
be:
a.
b.

coupled with a bona fide disclosure to the

parties-inlitigation;
subject to express acceptance by all the
parties of the cited reason as not material or
substantial. Absent such agreement, the
judge may not continue to hear the case.

PROPRIETY Canon 4
Propriety and the appearance of propriety are
essential to the performance of all the activities of a.
Judge.
MEMORY AID FOR SECTIONS UNDER CANON 4
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.

Avoidance of Impropriety (Sec. 1)

Acceptance of Personal Restrictions (Sec. 2)
Avoidance of Controversy (Sec. 3)
Not participate in cases where he may be
impartial (Sec. 4)
Not to allow the use of his residence by
other lawyers (Sec. 5)
Freedom of Expression (Sec. 6)

The requirement that judges be free from impropriety

or any appearance thereof is closely related to the
maintenance of integrity and promotion of
confidence in the judiciary.
Acts done by a judge which are not illegal but are still
violations of the Code of Judicial Ethics:
a.
b.
c.

d.
e.

Hearing cases on a day when the judge was

supposed to be on official leave
Hearing a motion while on vacation, in the
judges room dressed in a polo jacket
Photos showing the judge and one of his
subordinates coming out of a hotel together,
despite absence of clear evidence of sexual
congress
Making a joking remark to a litigant
suggesting that the latter prove he harbored
no ill feelings towards the judge
Making a comment after conducting a
marriage ceremony that the bride and
groom should sexually satisfy each other so
that they will not go astray

Whatever the motive may have been, the violent

action of the respondent in a public place constitutes
serious misconduct and the resultant outrage of the
community [Arban v. Borja (1989)]
It was highly improper for a judge to have wielded a
highpowered firearm in public and besieged the
house of a perceived defamer of character and honor
in warlike fashion and berated the object of his ire,
with his firearm aimed at the victim [Saburnido v.
Madrono (2001)]
ACCEPTANCE OF PERSONAL RESTRICTIONS Sec. 2
As a subject of constant public scrutiny, judges must
accept personal restrictions that might be viewed as
burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should do so
freely and willingly. In particular, judges shall conduct
themselves in a way that is consistent with the
dignity of the judicial office.
While judges are only human, their acceptance of the
judicial position means that more is expected from
them than from ordinary citizens, as their acts, both
public and private, color the publics perception of
the judiciary as a whole. [Re: Anonymous Complaint
Against Judge Edmundo T. Acua A.M. No RTJ-04-189,
(2005)]
AVOIDANCE OF CONTROVERSY Sec. 3 Judges shall,
in their personal relations with individual members of
the legal profession who practice regularly in their
court, avoid situations which might reasonably give
rise to the suspicion or appearance of favoritism or
partiality.
A judge is commanded at all times to be mindful of
the high calling of a dispassionate and impartial
arbiter expected at all times to be a cerebral man
who deliberately holds in check the tug and pull of
purely personal preferences which he shares with his
fellow mortals. [Office of the Court Administrator v.
Paderanga, A.M. No. RTJ-01-1660 (2005)]

NOT PARTICIPATE IN CASES WHERE HE MAY BE

IMPARTIAL Sec. 4 Judges shall not participate in the
determination of a case in which any member of their
family represents a litigant or is associated in any
manner with the case.
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. 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 fairness and integrity. The
purpose is to preserve the peoples faith and
confidence in the courts of justice. (PhilJa)
NOT ALLOW THE USE OF HIS RESIDENCE BY OTHER
LAWYERS Sec. 5 Judges shall not allow the use of
their residence by a member of the legal profession
to receive clients of the latter or of other members of
the legal profession.
The rationale for this section is the same as that of
Section 3.
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION Sec. 6. Judges, like any
other citizen, are entitled to freedom of expression,
belief, association and assembly, but in exercising
such rights, they shall always conduct themselves in
such a manner as to preserve the dignity of the
judicial office and the impartiality and independence
of the judiciary.
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. [Sison v. Caoibes, Jr. (2004)]
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. [Macias v. Arula (1982)]
BE INFORMED OF HIS FINANCIAL INTERESTS Sec. 7
Judges shall inform themselves about their personal
fiduciary and financial interests and shall make
reasonable efforts to be informed about the financial
interests of members of their family.
This section of the New Code of Judicial Conduct
should be read in conjunction with Section 7 of the
Republic Act 6713, 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.
[Catbagan v. Barte (2005)]
INFLUENCE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT Sec. 8. Judges
shall not use or lend the prestige of the judicial office
to advance their private interests, or those of a
member of their family or of anyone else, nor shall
they convey or permit others to convey the
impression that anyone is in a special position
improperly to influence them in the performance of
judicial duties.
This rule has two parts:
a.
b.

A judge may not use judicial office to

advance private interests
A judge may not give the impression that he
or she can be influenced to use the judicial
office to advance the private interests of
others

Ticket-fixing Misconduct in which judges

impermissibly take advantage of their position to
avoid traffic violations.

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Sec. 9 Confidential

information acquired by judges in their judicial
capacity shall not be used or disclosed for any other
purpose related to their judicial duties.
When a judge released a draft of her decision to a
party, that conduct was found to be not just a simple
breach of confidentiality but a scheme to make the
party negotiate for increases in the monetary
awards to be given by the judge. [Centrum AgriBusiness Realty Corp. v. KatalbasMoscardon (1995)]
A judge's act of personally furnishing a party copies
of orders issued, without passing them through the
court docket, was considered to be highly irregular,
giving rise to the suspicion that the judge was partial
to one of the parties in the case. [Co v. Calimag
(2000)]
It is improper for a judge to allow his wife to have
access to court records which are necessarily
confidential, as this practice may convey the
impression that she is the one who can influence the
judge's official functions. [Gordon v. Lilagan (2001)]
Where respondent appellate justice announced on
television that he lost a confidential draft of an order
and publicly asked the National Bureau of
Investigation to investigate, he was held by the
Supreme Court to have been guilty of conduct
unbecoming a judge. [In Re Justice Anacleto Badoy
(2003)]
ENGAGE IN OTHER ACTIVITIES Sec. 10. Subject to
the proper performance of judicial duties, judges may
a.

b.

c.

Write, lecture, teach and participate in

activities concerning the law, the legal
system, the administration of justice or
related matters;
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;
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 judges primary functions with
respect to his or her jurisdiction.
In dealing with the media, the Philippine Judicial
Academy suggests that a judge or court should avoid
acrimonious debate with reporters and the public, for
a knee jerk reaction from the court or judge may only
provoke negative follow up reports and articles.
This sections tolerance of judicially-related activities
is limited by Section 12, Article VIII of the
Constitution, which prohibits judges from being
designated to any agency performing quasi judicial
or administrative functions.
PRACTICE OF PROFESSION Sec. 11 Judges shall not
practice law whilst the holder of judicial office.
This prohibition is based on the inherent
incompatibility of the rights, duties and functions of
the office of an attorney with the powers, duties and
functions of a judge. [Carual v. Brusola (1999)]
While municipal judges can administer oaths or
execute certificates on matters related to their
official functions, they cannot notarize private
documents. [Tabao v. Asis (1996)]
However, it should be noted that judges assigned to
municipalities and circuits may act as notaries public
provided that:

1.
2.

all notarial fees charged be to the

governments account, and
certification be made in the notarial
documents attesting to the lack of lawyers
or notary in the municipality or circuit.
[Doughlas v. Lopez Jr. (2000)]

FORM ASSOCIATIONS Sec. 12 Judges may form or

join associations of judges or participate in other
organizations representing the interests of judges.
This rule also 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. (PhilJa)
GIFTS, REQUESTS, LOANS Sec. 13 Judges and
members of their families shall neither ask for, nor
accept, any gift, bequest, loan or favor in relation to
anything done or to be done or omitted to be done
by him or her in connection with the performance of
judicial duties.
This section should be read in conjunction with
Section 7(d) of R.A. 6713 which prohibits public
officials from soliciting or accepting gifts.
Receiving money from a party litigant is the kind of
gross and flaunting misconduct on the part of the
judge, who is charged with the responsibility of
administering the law and rendering justice. [Ompoc
v. Torre (1989)]
GIFTS, REQUESTS, LOANS BY STAFF Sec. 14 Judges
shall not knowingly permit court staff or others
subject to their influence, direction or authority, to
ask for, or accept, any gift, bequest, loan or favor in
relation to anything done or to be done or omitted to
be done in connection with their duties or functions.
This section complements the previous section and
assures that what the judge cannot do directly, may
not be done indirectly through the use of employees
or staff members.
PERMISSIBLE TOKENS AND AWARDS Sec. 15 Subject
to law and to any legal requirements of public
disclosure, judges may receive a token gift, award or
benefit as appropriate to the occasion on which it is
made, provided that such gift, award or benefit might
not be reasonably perceived as intended to influence
the judge in the performance of official duties or
otherwise give rise to an appearance of partiality.
General Rule: Judges and members of their families
cannot accept gifts, etc.
Exception: Subject to legal requirements like public
disclosure, may accept gifts provided that it might
not reasonably be perceived as intended to influence
judge.
Section 7(d) of R.A. 6713 allows the following:
a.
b.
c.

Gift of nominal value tendered and received

as a souvenir or mark of courtesy
Scholarship or fellowship grant or medical
treatment
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.

EQUALITY Canon 5

Ensuring equality of treatment to all before the

courts is essential to the due performance of the
judicial office.
MEMORY AID FOR SECTIONS UNDER CANON 5
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

Understand the diversity in society (Sec. 1)

Not to manifest bias or prejudice (Sec. 2)
Not to differentiate (Sec. 3)
Not to influence staff (Sec. 4)
Attitude to parties appearing in court (Sec.
5)

This is a new Canon not found in the previous two

Philippine Codes of Judicial Conduct. It expands the
measures to promote equality required by
international human rights agreements. Those
agreements advocate a universal application of law
and non-discrimination between the sexes. (PhilJa)
UNDERSTAND THE DIVERSITY IN SOCIETY Sec. 1
Judges shall be aware of and understand diversity in
society and differences arising from various sources,
including, but not limited to, race, color, sex, religion,
national origin, caste, disability, age, marital status,
sexual orientation, social and economic status, and
other like causes.
NOT TO MANIFEST BIAS OR PREJUDICE Sec. 2 Judges
shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by
words or conduct, manifest bias or prejudice towards
any person or group on irrelevant grounds.
NOT TO DIFFERENTIATE Sec. 3 Judges shall carry
out judicial duties with appropriate consideration for
all persons, such as the parties, witnesses, lawyers,
court staff and judicial colleagues, without
differentiation on any irrelevant ground, immaterial
to the proper performance of such duties.
NOT TO INFLUENCE STAFF Sec. 4 Judges shall not
knowingly permit court staff or others subject to his
or her influence, direction or control to differentiate
between persons concerned, in a matter before the
judge, on any irrelevant ground.
Judges should 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. [Canons of Judicial Ethics,
8; 1989 Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3, Rule 3.09]
ATTITUDE TO PARTIES APPEARING IN COURT Sec. 5
Judges shall require lawyers in proceedings before
the court to refrain from manifesting, by words or
conduct, bias or prejudice based on irrelevant
grounds, except such as are legally relevant to an
issue in proceedings and may be the subject of
legitimate advocacy.
Judges have the duty to prevent lawyers from
abusing witnesses with unfair treatment.
Women appearing as witnesses or litigants have
found themselves subjected to inappropriate, overly
familiar and demeaning forms of address, comments
on their personal appearance, sexist remarks, jokes
and unwelcome advances. As courts are expected to
ensure equality, any lawyer who makes an
insensitive or demeaning comment in court should
be admonished. (PhilJa)
COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE Canon 6
Competence and diligence are prerequisites to the
due performance of judicial office.
MEMORY AID FOR SECTIONS UNDER CANON 6
a.
b.

Duties take precedence (Sec. 1)

Perform administrative duties (Sec. 2)

c.
d.
e.
f.
g.

Maintain professional competence (Sec. 3)

Be informed about the law (Sec. 4)
Prompt decision making (Sec. 5)
Maintain order in proceedings (Sec. 6)
Not to engage in conduct contrary to duties
(Sec. 7)

DUTIES TAKE PRECEDENCE Sec. 1 The judicial

duties of a judge take precedence over all other
activities.
Though a judge has a duty to not sit where
disqualified, a judge has an equally strong duty not
to recuse himself when the circumstances do not
require recusal. [ABA Annotated Model Code of
Judicial Conduct (2004), Commentary, Canon 3B(1),
citing Laird v. Tatum, (1972)]
PERFORM ADMINISTRATIVE DUTIES Sec. 2 Judges
shall devote their professional activity to judicial
duties, which include not only the performance of
judicial functions and responsibilities in court and the
making of decisions, but also other tasks relevant to
the judicial office or the courts operations.
In the instant case, respondent judge impeded the
speedy disposition of cases by his successor on
account of missing records of cases. There is no
justification for missing records save fortuitous
events. The loss of not one but eight records is
indicative of gross misconduct and inexcusable
negligence unbecoming of a judge. [Longboan v.
Polig (1990)]
MAINTAIN PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE Sec. 3
Judges shall take reasonable steps to maintain and
enhance their knowledge, skills and personal
qualities necessary for the proper performance of
judicial duties, taking advantage for this purpose the
training and other facilities which should be made
available, under judicial control, to judges.
Even in the remaining years of his stay in the
judiciary, he should keep abreast with the changes in
the law and with the latest decisions and precedents.
Although a judge is nearing retirement, he should not
relax in his study of the law and court decisions.
[Abad v. Bleza (1986)]
To constitute gross ignorance of the law, an error or
irregularity on the part of the judge in the application
or interpretation of the law must not only be
contrary to existing law and jurisprudence but

motivated by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty and

corruption. [Duduaco v. Laquindanum (2005)]
It is only after the available judicial remedies have
been exhausted and the appellate tribunals have
spoken with finality that the door to an inquiry into
his criminal, civil, or administrative liability may be
said to have opened, or closed. [Maquiran v. Grageda
(2005)]
BE INFORMED ABOUT THE LAW Sec. 4 Judges shall
keep themselves informed about relevant
developments of international law, including
international conventions and other instruments
establishing human rights norms.
PROMPT DECISION MAKING Sec. 5 Judges shall
perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of
reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly and with
reasonable promptness.
MAINTAIN ORDER IN PROCEEDINGS Sec. 6 Judges
shall maintain order and decorum in all proceedings
before the court and be patient, dignified and
courteous in relation to litigants, witnesses, lawyers
and others with whom the judge deals in an official
capacity. Judges shall require similar conduct of legal
representatives, court staff and others subject to
their influence, direction or control.
The respondent judge was found guilty of serious
misconduct and inefficiency by reason of habitual
tardiness. He was fined and suspended for judicial
indolence. [Yu-Asensi v. Villanueva (2000)]
NOT TO ENGAGE IN CONDUCT CONTRARY TO DUTIES
Sec. 7 Judges shall not engage in conduct
incompatible with the diligent discharge of judicial
duties.
A judge neglected his duty when he failed to exercise
extra care in ensuring that records of the cases and
official documents in his custody were intact. The
Supreme Court reiterated that judges must adopt a
system of record management and organize their
dockets in order to bolster the prompt and efficient
dispatch of business. [Beso v. Daguman (2000)]
By issuing orders indefinitely postponing the hearing
of election protest, the judge in De la Cruz v. Pascua
manifested inefficiency in the disposition of an
election protest case and thus overtly transgressed
basic mandatory rules for expeditious resolution of
cases. [De la Cruz v. Pascua (2001)]