Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Ca n o n 6 AND
DILIGENCE
COMPETENCE are pre-requisites to the due
AND performance of judicial office.
DILIGENCE
Slide 5 Ca n o n 6
Se c t i o n 2
Ju d g e s s h a l l d e v o t e t h e ir pr o f e s s io n a l
a c t i v i t y t o ju d ic i a l d u t ie s , w h ic h in c l u d e
n o t o n l y t h e pe r f o r m a n c e o f ju d ic i a l
f u n c t io n s a n d r e s po n s ibil i t ie s in c o u r t a n d
t h e m a k in g o f d e c i s io n s , b u t a l s o o t h e r
t a s k s r e l e va n t t o t h e ju d ic i a l o f f ic e o r t h e
c o u r t ’s o pe r a t io n s .
Slide 8 Ca n o n 6
Se c t i o n 3
Ju d g e s s h a l l t a k e r e a s o n a bl e s t e ps t o
m a in t a in a n d e n h a n c e t h e ir
k n o w l e d g e , s k il l s a n d pe r s o n a l q u a l i t ie s
n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e pr o pe r pe r f o r m a n c e o f
ju d ic i a l d u t ie s , t a k in g a d va n t a g e f o r t h i s
pu r po s e o f t h e t r a in in g a n d o t h e r f a c il i t ie s
w h ic h s h o u l d be m a d e a va il a bl e , u n d e r
ju d ic i a l c o n t r o l , t o ju d g e s .
Slide 9 ALMONTE vs. BI EN It was held in this case, That the Code
461 SCRA218 ( 2005) of Judicial Conduct enjoins judges to
The Code of Judi ci al Conduct enj oi ns j udges be faithful to the law and maintain
t o be f ai t hf ul t o t he l awand mai nt ai n professi onal
compet ence. They are expect ed t o keep abreast wi t h t he professional competence. As advocates
devel opment s i n l awand j uri sprudence, and t o be profi ci ent
i n t hei r appli cati on and i nt erpret ati on t hereof .
of justice and visible representation of
When a l awor a rule is basic, a j udge owes it to the law, they are expected to be
his office to si mply apply it ; anything less than proficient in their application and
that is gross i gnorance of the l aw.
interpretation thereof. When a law or a
rule is basic, a judge owes it to his
office to simply apply it; anything less
than that is gross ignorance of the law.
Slide 10 AJENOvs. I NSERTO It was held in this case that the Canons
( 71 SCRA166) ) of Judicial Ethics would not allow that
A Judge owed i t t o t he di gni t y of t he court , t o t he l egal misconduct to pass without any word
professi on and t o t he publi c, t o knowt he very l awhe i s
supposed t o appl y t o a gi ven cont roversy. of admonition to the erring respondent
I n t he remai ni ng years of hi s st ay i n t he j udi ci ary Judge. When he accepted his position,
he shoul d keep abreast wi t h t he changes i n t he
l awand wi t h t he l at est deci si ons and
he owed it to the dignity of the court,
precedent s. He shoul d not rel ax i n hi s st udy of to the legal profession and to the
t he l awand court deci si ons. public, to know the very law he is
supposed to apply to a given
controversy. In this respect respondent
Judge has failed.