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.
SATURNINA GALMAN, et. al vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (1986)
In rendering its decision the Sandiganbayan overdid itself in favoring the presidential
directive. Its bias and partiality in favor of the accused was glaringly obvious. The
evidence presented by the prosecution was totally ignored and disregarded. ... It was
deemed not sufficient to simply acquit all of the twenty-six accused on the standard
ground that their guilt had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt, as was the most
logical and appropriate way of justifying the acquittal in the case, there not being a
total absence of evidence that could show guilt on the part of the accused. The
decision had to pronounce them 'innocent of the crime charged on the two
informations, and accordingly, they incur neither criminal nor civil liability.' It is a
rare phenomenon to see a person accused of a crime to be favored with such total
absolution.
The Supreme Court cannot permit such a sham trial and verdict and travesty of justice
to stand unrectified. The courts of the land under its aegis are courts of law and justice
and equity. They would have no reason to exist if they were allowed to be used as
mere tools of injustice, deception and duplicity to subvert and suppress the truth,
instead of repositories of judicial power whose judges are sworn and committed to
render impartial justice to all alike who seek the enforcement or protection of a right
or the prevention or redress of a wrong, without fear or favor and removed from the
pressures of politics and prejudice.
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.
MERCEDITA G. LORENZO vs. JUDGE PRIMO L. MARQUEZ (1988)
A judge cannot sit in any case in which he was a counsel without the written consent
of all the parties in interest, signed by them and entered upon the record. The
respondent alleged that since there was no objection from any of the parties, he
proceeded to preside over the case and to decide it. This is a clear violation of the law.
The rule is explicit that he must secure the written consent of all the parties, not a
mere verbal consent much. less a tacit acquiescence. More than this, said written
consent must be signed by them and entered upon the record.
The Judge here was dismissed.
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.

PASTOR SALUD vs. JUDGE FLORENTINO M. ALUMBRES

Code of Judicial Conduct mandates judges to administer justice without delay and
directs every judge to dispose of the courts business promptly within the period
prescribed by the law and the rules. We have emphasized strict observance of this
duty in order to minimize, if not totally eradicate, the twin problems of congestion
and delay that have long plagued our courts. It is an oft-repeated maxim that justice
delayed is often justice denied. Thus, any delay in the administration of justice, no
matter how brief, may result in depriving the litigant of his right to a speedy
disposition of his case. Delay ultimately affects the image of the judiciary.
Failure to comply with the mandate of the Constitution and of the Code of Judicial
Conduct constitutes serious misconduct, which is detrimental to the honor and
integrity of a judicial office. Inability to decide a case despite the ample time
prescribed is inexcusable, constitutes gross inefficiency,26 and warrants
administrative sanction of the defaulting judge. Delay in the rendition of judgments
diminishes the peoples faith in our judicial system, and lowers its standards and
brings it into disrepute.
The Judge was fined P5,000.00
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.
CANON 2
INTEGRITY
Integrity is essential not only to the proper discharge of the judicial
office but also to the personal demeanor of judges.
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.
DR. NORBERT L. ALFONSO vs. JUDGE MODESTO C. JUANSON
It has been said that a magistrate of the law must comport himself at all times in
such manner that his conduct, official or otherwise, can bear the most searching
scrutiny of the public that looks up to him as the epitome of integrity and justice.
The ethical principles and sense of propriety of a judge are essential to the
preservation of the faith of the people in the judiciary. It is settled that immorality
has not been confined to sexual matters, but includes conduct inconsistent with
rectitude or indicative of corruption, indecency, depravity, and dissoluteness; or is
willful, flagrant, or shameless conduct showing moral indifference to opinions of

respectable members of the community, and as an inconsiderate attitude toward

good order and public welfare.
WHEREFORE, for violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct, the Canons of Judicial
Ethics, and the rule on official time, respondent JUDGE MODESTO C. JUANSON is
hereby sentenced to pay a FINE of TWO THOUSAND PESOS (P2,000.00) and,
further, sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt
with more severely.

SEC. 2. The behavior and conduct of judges must reaffirm the peoples
faith in the integrity of the judiciary. Justice must not merely be done
but must also be seen to be done.
EMMA J. CASTILLO vs. JUDGE MANUEL M. CALANOG
Generally the Court attaches no persuasive value to affidavits of
desistance, especially when executed as an afterthought, as in the case at bar.
Even if Emma Castillo had not filed her Affidavit of Desistance, the Court would n
ot have been swayed solely by her allegations, and it found from the testimony of Jos
e Javier that the formers charges, indeed, rest on sufficient grounds. Aside from this,
there were evidences adduced to support the allegations, like the birth certificate of th
eir alleged son where stated that the father is Judge Calanog. Also, the child is
listed in the Brgy census record, and it was a verified from NHA that the
condominium unit was owned by the judge, although not yet fully paid.
Hon.Manuel M. Calanog, Jr., is found guilty by the Supreme Court of
IMMORALITY and is DISMISSED from the roll of judges, with prejudice to
his reinstatement or appointment to any public office including a governmentowned or controlled corporation, and forfeiture of retirement benefits.
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.
IN RE SOTTO
Mere criticism or comment on the correctness or wrongness, soundness or
unsoundness of the decision of the court in a pending case made in good faith may be
tolerated; because if well founded it may enlighten the court and contribute to the
correction of an error if committed; but if it is not well taken and obviously
erroneous, it should, in no way, influence the court in reversing or modifying its
decision. As a member of the bar and an officer of the courts Atty. Vicente Sotto, like
any other, is in duty bound to uphold the dignity and authority of this Court, to which
he owes fidelity according to the oath he has taken as such attorney, and not to
promote distrust in the administration of justice. An attorney as an officer of the court
is under special obligation to be respectful in his conduct and communication to the

courts, he may be removed from office or stricken from the roll of attorneys as being
guilty of flagrant misconduct. Decision: Atty. Sotto guilty of contempt. Fine of 1,000
with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. He is also required to show cause
why he should not be disbarred.
CANON 3
IMPARTIALITY
Impartiality is essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office. It
applies not only to the decision itself but also to the process by which
the decision is made.
SEC. 1. Judges shall perform their judicial duties without favor, bias or
prejudice.
In Re Aguas

the opinion of the court that the action of the judge in seizing Alberto Aguas by the
shoulder and turning him about was unwarranted and an interference with that
freedom from unlawful personal violence to which every witness is entitled while
giving testimony in a court of justice. Against such conduct the appellant had the right
to pretest and to demand that the incident be made a matter of record. That he did so
was not contempt, providing protest and demand were respectfully made and
with due regard for the dignity of the court *** While lawyers are prohibited to
attribute motives to a judge not supported by the record, lawyers must however be
courageous enough to expose arbitrariness and injustices of courts and judges
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.
TOMAS CABULISAN, complainant, vs. JUDGE ADRIAN N. PAGALILAUAN
People who run the judiciary, particularly justices and judges, must not only be
proficient in both the substantive and procedural aspects of the law, but more
importantly, they must possess the highest degree of integrity and probity and an
unquestionable moral uprightness both in their public and private lives.
By committing the prurient acts in question, respondent violated the trust reposed in
him and utterly failed to live up to the noble ideals and rigid standards of morality
required in the judicial profession.
We absolve respondent however of the charge that he was keeping a mistress. From
the evidence, the woman alluded to was Divina Calaycay who happened to be the

widow of Judge Infante S. Calaycay, respondent's predecessor in office. Gemma

Cabading, a court interpreter, testified that Judge Calaycay was a close friend of
respondent who frequented his office seeking his help in obtaining the death benefits
of her husband from the Employees Compensation Commission. No evidence was
produced to prove that there was more than friendship between the two and that
Divina was his mistress.
As to the charge that respondent allowed practicing lawyers to write decisions for
him, court interpreter Gemma Cabading disclaimed any knowledge thereof. She said
that the lawyers came to the court office only when their cases were scheduled in
court. There was no proof that respondent allowed practitioners to prepare decisions
for him.
WHEREFORE, for his disgraceful acts of voyeurism committed against Marilyn C.
Dumayas, respondent Judge Adrian N. Pagalilauan, RTC-Br. 12, Sanchez Mira,
Cagayan, is fined P10,000.00 with warning that a repetition of the same or similar
acts will be dealt with more severely.
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.
CRESENCIO PAREDES, and VENANCIO UYAN, Petitioners, vs. JUDGE
FRANCISCO MEN ABAD
for the strict observance of the rule of due process, the respondent Judge Abad is
hereby declared disqualified to continue hearing the election protests filed by
Cresencio Paredes and Venancio Uyan against the private respondents Gualberto
Lumauig and John Langbayan. For, as we have already observed above, there must
already be a strained personal relationship between the petitioners, on the one hand,
and the respondent Judge Abad on the other; and not only the petitioners but even
their political supporters as well may not be in a position to have full faith, trust and
confidence on the impartiality of said respondent Judge. And "next in importance to
the duty of rendering a righteous judgment is that of doing it in such a manner as will
beget no suspicion of the fairness and integrity of a judge." We should be very
zealous in safeguarding this constitutional guarantee of due process. the respondent
Judges dismissing the election protests respectively filed by the herein petitioners
against the private respondents are hereby set aside, and the different Courts of First
Instance where said protests are pending are hereby ordered to immediately continue
with the trial thereof. The respondent Judge Francisco Men Abad, having been
declared disqualified, is ordered to desist from continuing with the hearing of the
election protests filed by petitioners Cresencio Paredes and Venancio Uyan against
the private respondents Gualberto Lumauig and John Langbayan. Costs against the

private respondents.
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.
NICOLAS FECUNDO, petitioner, vs. HON. RAMON BERJAMEN
We do not, however, find any grave abuse of discretion or excess of jurisdiction in
respondent judges denial of the motion to inhibit for non-compliance with the three (3)
day notice rule. Section 4, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court requires that notice of a motion
be served by the movant on all parties concerned at least three (3) days before the
hearing thereof. Section 5 of the same Rule provides that the notice shall be directed to
the parties concerned, and shall state the time and place for the hearing of the motion. A
motion which does not meet the requirements of Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 15 of the
Rules of Court is considered a worthless piece of paper which the clerk has no right to
receive and the court has no authority to act upon. This contention or observation is a
non-sequitur. Tardiness or delay in the disposition of election cases in other courts does
not connote partiality of the presiding judge in election cases speedily disposed of. A
spotless dispensation of justice requires not only that the decision rendered be
intrinsically fair but that the judge rendering it must, at all times, maintain the appearance
of fairness and impartiality. His language, both written and spoken, must be guarded and
measured, lest the best of intentions be misconstrued construed.

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) The judge has actual bias or prejudice concerning a party or
personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the
proceedings;
(b) The judge previously served as a lawyer or was a material witness in
the matter in controversy;
(c) The judge, or a member of his 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 judges 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;
Atty. Lolito G. Aparicio v. Judge Ermelindo C. Andal
Judge Andal did not act with grave abuse of discretion in denying the Motion for
Inhibition. Rule 137, Section 1 of the Rules of Court provides, in its first paragraph,
the legal grounds for compulsory disqualification of judges or judicial officers to sit
in certain cases. Its second paragraph provides that a judge may, in the exercise of his
sound discretion, disqualify himself from sitting ill a case for just or valid reasons
other than those mentioned in the first paragraph. In this case, the motion filed by the
petitioner did not state a valid ground for Judge Andal to compulsorily inhibit in the
case. Added to that, Judge Andals defense that he finds no valid ground for him to
inhibit at his discretion is valid. It is because the petitioners allegation of the
existence of the state of hostility between the two parties, as stated by the Solicitor
General, is purely imaginary. It was refuted by respondent that as a judge, he has
neither the reason nor the luxury of time to entertain such a feeling as he is
preoccupied with the many cases assigned to him. Hence, respondents decision to
deny the motion was done in a valid and judicious exercise of his function and duty as
judge.
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 judges 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.
CANON 4
PROPRIETY
Propriety and the appearance of propriety are essential to the
performance of all the activities of a judge.
SEC. 1. Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of
impropriety in all of their activities.
JOCELYN TALENS-DABON, complainant, vs. JUDGE HERMIN E. ARCEO
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 the people
who run the system have done justice. At times, the strict manner by which we apply
the law may, in fact, do justice but may not necessarily create confidence among the
people that justice, indeed, is served. Hence, in order to create such confidence, the
people who run the judiciary, particularly judges and justices, must not only be
proficient in both the substantive and procedural aspects of the law, but more
importantly, they must possess the highest integrity, probity, and unquestionable
moral uprightness, both in their public and private lives.Only then can the people be
reassured that the wheels of justice in this country run with fairness and equity, thus
creating confidence in the judicial system. The personal and official actuations of
every member of the judiciary must be beyond reproach and above suspicion. The
faith and confidence of the people in the administration of justice can not be
maintained if a judge who dispenses it is not equipped with the cardinal judicial virtue
of moral integrity and if he obtusely continues to commit affront to public decency. In
fact, moral integrity is more than a virtue; it is a necessity in the judiciary. Judge
Hermin E. Arceo is hereby DISMISSED
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.
LIWANAG V LUSTRE
respondent has failed to live up to the high standard of conduct required of members
of the bench. He grossly violated his duty to uphold the integrity of the judiciary and
to avoid impropriety not only in his public but in his private life as well. All to the

grave prejudice of the administration of justice, indeed.

The Court cannot countenance any act or omission, on the part of the officials at
every level in the administration of justice, which erodes rather than enhances the
publics faith and trust in the judiciary. Respondents disgraceful conduct surely merits
sanctions. respondent GUILTY of gross misconduct. As he has already retired from
the service and thus could no longer be dismissed nor suspended, we hereby order
that a FINE of P40,000.00 be imposed upon him, to be deducted from his
retirement benefits. Further, he is hereby barred from any employment in all branches
of the government including government-owned and -controlled corporations.

apprehensive that respondent might exert influence to favor himself, to the detriment
of his said adversary. And so it turned out, this was precisely the substance of
complainant's second charge. Indeed, instead of promoting public confidence in the
dignity, honor, integrity and independence of the Judiciary, as every Judge is urged to
do by the Canons just cited, respondent's aforesaid behavior produced the opposite
result." Respondent Judge, Salvador P. de Guzman, Jr. is guilty on three (3) counts, of
irresponsible, improper and dishonorable conduct in disregard of the Code of Judicial
Ethics, he is hereby SEVERELY CENSURED, with a stern warning that a repetition
of the said acts or similar acts in the future shall receive graver sanctions

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.
PEOPLE vs. MACEDA
The court, which is tasked with the administration of justice, has the authority and
responsibility to safeguard the person of the accused pending criminal proceedings, to
prevent a miscarriage of justice. In relation to this, the court has the discretion to
adopt measures that would guarantee the accused's attendance at the trial of the
criminal case against him. the circumstances respondent judge was concerned with
the safety and well being of respondent Javellana during detention. Hence, respondent
Judge Maceda had to entrust the custody of respondent Javellana to the provincial
Probation Officer as the Police escorts assigned to guard him were unceremoniously
recalled by the police Station Commander of San Jose, Antique. He was impelled to
make certain that respondent Javellana would be properly detained and able to appear
at his prosecution at the proper time. However, respondent judge committed grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in continuously
hearing respondent Javellana's petition for bail and ordering the arrest and
commitment of Assistant Provincial Prosecutor John Torralba for contempt due to his
request for postponement. Hence we restrained Judge Maceda from trying the
criminal cases involved.

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.

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.
JAVIER vs. Judge DE GUZMAN
It is reasonably to be expected, considering the peculiar Filipino psyche, personality
and culture of which a Judge like respondent is presumably aware that the
public, particularly respondent's adversary in this case, would naturally be

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.
Office of the Court Administrator vs. Judge Floro
This charge must fail as there is nothing inherently improper or deplorable in Judge
Floro having allowed another person to use his folding bed for short periods of time
during office hours and while there is no one else in the room. The situation would
have been different if there had been any allegation of misuse or abuse of government
funds and/or facilities such as in the case of Presado v. Genova 43 wherein Judge
Genova was found guilty of serious misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best
interest of the service when he and his family used his chambers as residential
quarters, with the provincial government paying for the electrical bills.
In this case, Judge Flor's calling cards cannot be considered as simple and ordinary
because he included the honors he received from his law school with a claim of being
a bar topnotcher, thus breaching the norms of simplicity and modesty required of
judges.
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.
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.
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.
LEON UMALE, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE ONOFRE VILLALUZ
Herein respondent Judge should be commended this time for heeding Our ruling in
the case of Geotina vs. Gonzales that "a judge, sitting on a case must at all times be
fully free, disinterested, impartial and independent. Elementary due process requires a
hearing before an impartial and disinterested tribunal. 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 his fairness and as to his integrity."
And Mr. Justice Fernando, speaking for the Court, in the case of Mateo, Jr., et al. vs.
Honorable Onofre Villaluz, etc., supra, added that: "... it is made clear to the
occupants of the bench that outside of pecuniary interest, relationship or previous
participation in the matter that calls for adjudication, there may be other causes that
could conceivably erode the trait of objectivity, thus calling for inhibition. That is to
betray a sense of realism, for the factors that lead to preferences or Predilections are
many and varied. It is well, therefore, that if any such should make its appearance and
prove difficult to resist, the better course for a judge is to disqualify himself. That
way, he avoids being misunderstood. His reputation for probity and objectivity is
preserved. What is even more important, the ideal of an impartial administration of
justice is lived up to. Thus is due process vindicated." Consequently, herein
respondent Judge committed no abuse of discretion..
SEC. 10. Subject to the proper performance of judicial duties, judges
may
(a) Write, lecture, teach and participate in activities concerning the law,
the legal system, the administration of justice or related matters;
(b) 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;

(c) 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.
In Re: Rodolfo Manzano
Quasi-Judicial has a fairly clear meaning and Judges can confidently refrain from
participating in the work of any Administrative Agency which adjudicates disputes &
controversies involving the rights of parties within its jurisdiction.
Administrative functions are those which involve the regulation and control over the
conduct & affairs of individuals for their own welfare and the promulgation of rules
and regulations to better carry out the policy of the Legislature or such as are
devolved upon the administrative agency by the organic law of its existence.
Administrative functions as used in Sec. 12 refers to the Governments executive
machinery and its performance of governmental acts. It refers to the management
actions, determinations, and orders of executive officials as they administer the laws
and try to make government effective. There is an element of positive action, of
supervision or control.
SEC. 11. Judges shall not practice law whilst the holder of judicial
office.
TUZON, complainant, vs. JUDGE LORETO CLORIBEL-PURUGGANAN
Under Section 35, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, and Rule 5.07 of the Code
of Judicial Conduct, judges are prohibited from engaging in the private practice of
law. This is based on public policy because the rights, duties, privileges and functions
of the office of an attorney-at-law are inherently incompatible with the high official
functions, duties, powers, discretion and privileges of a judge.
Regarding the other charges of complainant, we find no proof that respondent
antedated her decision in Civil Case 4269. Further, no adequate evidence supports
complainants charges of gross ignorance of the law, serious misconduct, evident bias
and partiality, and knowingly rendering an unjust judgment. Thus, these charges
should be dismissed.
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby finds respondent judge Loreto Cloribel-Purugganan
guilty of illegal practice of law, in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct and the
Revised Rules of Court.
SEC. 12. Judges may form or join associations of judges or participate
in other organizations representing the interests of judges.

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.
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.
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 reasonably be perceived as intended to
influence the judge in the performance of judicial duties or otherwise
give rise to an appearance of partiality.
ATTY. DAVID G. OMPOC vs. JUDGE NORITO E. TORRES
After having carefully examined the records in this case, the Court is convinced that
respondent Judge did commit the acts with which he was charged. In receiving
P5,000.00 and P3,000.00 from a party to a litigation before him, as loans which he
never paid back and which to all appearances he never intended to pay back, and in
refusing or failing to pay for an air conditioner installed in his wife's automobile van
by a shop owned by a party litigant before him, respondent Judge is guilty of serious
misconduct in office and of acts unbecoming a member of the judiciary. Members of
the judiciary should display not only the highest integrity but must at all times
conduct themselves in such manner as to be beyond reproach and suspicion. 'The
judge is the visible representation of the law and, more importantly of justice. From
him, the people draw their will and awareness to obey the law. They see in him an
intermediary of justice between two conflicting interests, Thus, for the judge to return
that regard, he must be the first to abide by the law and weave an example for the
others to follow. He should be studiously careful to avoid even the slightest infraction
of the law.'
ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to DISMISS respondent Judge from the service
CANON 5
EQUALITY

Ensuring equality of treatment to all before the courts is essential to the

due performance of the judicial office.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ALEJANDRO IBASAN
"Judges are not mere referees like those of a boxing bout, only to watch and decide
the results of a game; they should have as much interest as counsel in the orderly and
expeditious presentation of evidence, calling attention of counsel to points at issue
that are overlooked, directing them to ask questions that would elicit the facts on the
issues involved, clarifying ambiguous remarks by witnesses, etc."
A judge may properly intervene in the trial of a case to promote expedition and avoid
unnecessary waste of time or to clear up some obscurity. In this respect, the record
shows no irregularity in the conduct of the trial judge. The emotional outburst of the
presiding judge is rather unfortunate. Even if a judge sincerely believes that a counsel
is deliberately exasperating or inciting him through the introduction of witnesses
publicly known to be personally anathema to the judge and not because their

testimony may prove or disprove matters in issue, the judge should avoid any
unseemly display of shortness of temper or other unbecoming behaviour. A judge
should not allow himself to be led by counsel or witnesses into showing that he can
be moved by pride, prejudice, passion, or pettiness in the performance of his official
functions. It is precisely during such trying moments that a judge should be studiously
careful about his conduct and in the measures he takes to uphold the court's authority
and dignity. However, the actuations of the trial judge showing some impatience
against the appellants did not preclude them from adequately presenting their case,
We have examined the records carefully and we find that the appealed decision was
not based on any matters improperly elicited by the trial Judge during his examination
of the witnesses nor has it been affected by the quoted remarks. Appellants were
given all the opportunity to present their evidence.
CANON 6
COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE
Competence and diligence are prerequisites to the due performance of
judicial office.
SEC. 1. The judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all other
activities.
OCA vs lansang
Judge Virgilio S. Lansang GUILTY of the charges complained of. His actuations,
practices and conduct are unbecoming of a judicial officer; his acts of commission
and omission having been committed through admitted negligence on his part, failure
to report to the Supreme Court or to the Court Administrator, his grievances against
his own Clerk of Court against whom he never filed any formal complaints regarding
the latter's alleged irregularities; his apparent acceptance of the accuracy of the
reports submitted by his Clerk of Court; and unmitigated failure to ask for
administrative remedies from the Supreme Court and Court Administrator and the
existence up to now of 182 pending cases which according to the Court Administrator
had been submitted for decision, and not merely pending trial. The Court likewise
Resolved not to accept such resignation (acceptance of resignations from the judiciary
being a prerogative of the President of the Philippines), but instead to consider him
RETIRED, with all benefits and gratuities forfeited.
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.
FELDMERTO M. LONGBOAN vs.HON. EMILIO L. POLIG
respondent judge even impeded the speedy disposition of cases by his successor on
account of missing records of cases. This fact reflects an inefficient and disorderly
system in the recording of cases assigned to his sala. Although blame can also be
conveniently laid on the court personnel's mismanagement of the records of cases,
proper and efficient court management is as much the judge's responsibility for the
Court personnel are not the guardians of a Judge's responsibilities
In sum, the Court finds respondent judge guilty of inexcusable negligence, gross
inefficiency and grave and serious misconduct in the discharge of his functions.
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 of the
training and other facilities which should be made available, under
judicial control, to judges.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and ALFREDO QUIJANO, vs. HON.
BERNARDO SALAS
The respondent judge was probably still thinking of the old doctrine when he ruled
that trial in absentia of the escapee could not be held because he could not be duly
notified under Section 19. He forgets that the fugitive is now deemed to have waived
such notice precisely because he has escaped, and it is also this escape that makes his
failure to appear at his trial unjustified. Escape can never be a legal justification. In
the past, his escape "rewarded" him by postponing all further proceedings against him
and in effect ultimately absolving him of the charge he was facing. Under the present
rule, his escape will, legally speaking, operate to Ms disadvantage by preventing him
from attending his trial, which will continue even in his absence and most likely
result in his conviction.
We admonish against a too-literal reading of the law as this is apt to constrict rather
than fulfill its purpose and defeat the intention of its authors. That intention is usually
found not in "the letter that killeth but in the spirit that vivifieth," which is not really
that evanescent or elusive. As judges, we must look beyond and not be bound by the
language of the law, seeking to discover, by our own lights, the reason and the rhyme
for its enactment. That we may properly apply it according to its ends, we need and
must use not only learning but also vision.
The trial judge is directed to investigate the lawyer who assisted Mario Abong in
securing bail from the city court of Cebu on the basis of the withdrawn information
for homicide and to report to us the result of his investigation within sixty days.

WHEREFORE, the order of the trial court dated December 22, 1983, denying the
motion for the trial in absentia of the accused is set aside. The respondent judge is
directed to continue hearing the case against the respondent Mario Abong in
absentia as long as he has not reappeared, until it is terminated.
SEC. 4. Judges shall keep themselves informed about relevant
developments of international law, including international conventions
and other instruments establishing human rights norms.
ENRIQUEZ, vs. JUDGE ANACLETO L. CAMINADE
Diligence in keeping up-to-date with the decisions of this Court is a commendable
virtue of judges and, of course, members of the bar. Comprehending the Courts
decisions is a different matter, however, for it is in this area where ones competence
may be tested and proven. Those who accept this exalted position owe the public and
this Court the ability to be proficient in the law and the duty to maintain professional
competence at all times. Indeed, competence is a mark of a good judge. This exalted
position entails a lot of responsibilities, foremost of which is proficiency in the law.
One cannot seek refuge in a mere cursory knowledge of statutes and procedural rules.
Respondent judge fell short of these standards when he failed in his duties to follow
elementary law and to keep abreast with prevailing jurisprudence. Service in the
judiciary involves continuous study and research from beginning to end.
Exacting as these standards may be, judges are expected to be personifications of
justice and the rule of law and, as such, to have more than just a modicum
acquaintance with statutes and procedural rules. Essential to every one of them is
faithfulness to the laws and maintenance of professional competence.
Judges are not common individuals whose gross errors "men forgive and time
forgets." For when they display an utter lack of familiarity with the rules, they erode
the confidence of the public in the competence of our courts.Such lack is gross
ignorance of the law. Verily, failure to follow basic legal commands and rules
constitutes gross ignorance of the law, of which no one is excused, and surely not a
judge.
Judge Anacleto L. Caminade is found guilty of gross ignorance of the law, for which
he is FINED in the amount of twenty thousand pesos (P20,000).

SEC. 5. Judges shall perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of
reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness.
SANGGUNIANG BAYAN OF BATAC, ILOCOS NORTE, complainant, vs. JUDGE
EFREN F. ALBANO
respondent judge has violated the rules on preliminary investigation and issuance of a
warrant of arrest since the start of his term as municipal judge in Batac, Ilocos Norte
in September 1991. The gross ignorance of respondent judge has immensely
prejudiced the administration of justice. Parties adversely affected by his rulings
dismissing their complaints after preliminary investigation have been denied their
statutory right of review that should have been conducted by the provincial
prosecutor. His practice of issuing warrants of arrest without examining the
complainants and their witnesses is improvident and could have unnecessarily
deprived the accused of their liberty however momentary it may be. Our Constitution
requires that all members of the judiciary must be of proven competence, integrity,
probity and independence. Respondent judges stubborn adherence to improper
procedures and his constant violation of the constitutional provision requiring him to
personally examine the complainant and the witness in writing and under oath before
issuing a warrant of arrest makes him unfit to discharge the functions of a judge.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, respondent Judge Efren F. Albano is DISMISSED
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.
SEC. 7. Judges shall not engage in conduct incompatible with the
diligent discharge of judicial duties.