New Code of Judicial Conduct

• Sources
• New Code of Judicial Ethics
– A.M. No. 03-05-01 SC, June 1, 2004
*Bangalore Draft of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
(1) a universal recognition that a competent, independent and
impartial judiciary is essential if the courts are to fulfill their
role in upholding constitutionalism and the rule of law;
(2) that public confidence in the judicial system and in the moral
authority and integrity of the judiciary is of utmost
importance in a modern democratic society; and
(3) that it is essential that judges, individually and collectively,
respect and honor judicial office as a public trust and strive
to enhance and maintain confidence in the judicial system.
• Code of Judicial Conduct and Canons of Judicial Ethics
• Canon 1: INDEPENDENCE
• Canon 2: INTEGRITY
• Canon 3: IMPARTIALITY
• Canon 4: PROPRIETY
• Canon 5: EQUALITY
• Canon 6: COMPETENCE AND
DILIGENCE
CANON 1. INDEPENDENCE

Judicial independence is a prerequisite

to the Rule of Law and a fundamental
guarantee of fair trial. A judge shall
therefore, uphold and exemplify judicial
independence in both its individual and
institutional aspects.
• Section 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.
• Ramirez v. Corpuz-Macandog
– A judge is expected to be fearless in the
pursuit of rendering justice, to be unafraid to
displease any person, interest or power and to
be equipped with a moral fiber strong enough
to resist temptation.
• Section 2. In performing judicial duties, judges shall
be independent from judicial colleagues in respect
of decisions which the judge is obliged to make
independently.
• Section 3. Judges shall refrain from influencing in
any manner the outcome of litigation or dispute
pending before another court or administrative
agency.
• Sabitsana, Jr. v. Villamor
– A judge who tries to influence the outcome of a
litigation pending in another court not only
subverts the independence of the judiciary but
also undermines the people’s faith in its integrity
and impartiality.
• Section 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
public interests of others, nor convey or
permit others to convey the impression that
they are in a special position to influence the
judge.
• Hurtado v. Judalena
– When a judge is related to one of the parties
within the sixth degree of consanguinity or
affinity, his disqualification is MANDATORY.
• Padilla v. Zamora
• 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. The actuation of a Judge of eating and
drinking in public places with a lawyer who has
pending cases in his sala may well arouse
suspicion in the public mind, thus tending to
erode the trust of the litigants in the impartiality
of the judge. This eventuality may undermine the
people’s faith in the administration of justice.
• Section 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.
• Alfonso v. Alonzo Legasto
• The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent
judge had acted improperly in not informing the
Court (through the Office of the Court
Administrator) of the need to streamline her
court and of its personnel needs, instead asking
the LGU to employ those who were displaced
due to her downsizing.
• Section 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 abdicate.
• Tan v. Rosete
• The judge’s 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. They
constitute gross misconduct which is punishable
under Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court.
• Section 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.
• Section 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.

• Pascual v. Judge Bonifacio

– In the judiciary, moral integrity is more than a
cardinal virtue; it is a necessity.
– Not only must a judge render a just decision,
he is also duty bound to render it in a manner
completely free from suspicion as to its
fairness and its integrity.
• Section 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.
• Section 2. The behavior and conduct of
judges must reaffirm the people's faith
in the integrity of the judiciary. Justice
must not only merely be done but must
also be seen and done.
• Sibayan-Joaquin v. Javellana
– Judges, indeed, should be extra prudent in associating with
litigants and counsel appearing before them so as to avoid
even a mere perception of possible bias or partiality. It is
not expected, of course, that judges should live in retirement
or seclusion from any social intercourse.
– In pending or prospective litigations before them, however,
judges should be scrupulously careful to avoid anything that
may tend to awaken the suspicion that their personal, social
or sundry relations could influence their objectivity, for not
only must judges possess proficiency in law but that also they
must act and behave in such manner that would assure, with
great comfort, litigants and their counsel of the judges'
competence, integrity and independence.
– Like Caesar’s wife, a judge must not only be pure but also
beyond suspicion.
• Section 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.
• 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.
• Section 1. Judges shall perform their judicial
duties without favor, bias, or prejudice.
• Section 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.
• Section 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.
• Parayno v. Meneses
• The rule of disqualification of judges must yield
to demands of necessity. A judge is not
disqualified to sit in a case if there is no other
judge available to hear and decide the case.
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 a 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.
• Section 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.
• Chavez v. Public Estates Authority
• 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.
• Section 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 judge's ruling in a lower court is the subject
of review;

(f) The judge is related by consanguinity or affinity

to a party litigant within the 6th civil degree or to
counsel within the 4th 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.
• Section 6. A judge disqualified as stated above
may, instead of withdrawing from the
proceeding, disclose on the records the basis of
disqualification. If based on such disclosure, the
parties and lawyers independently of a 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.
• CANON 4. PROPRIETY

Propriety and the appearance of

propriety are essential to the
performance of all the activities of a
judge.
• Section 1. Judges shall avoid impropriety and
the appearance of impropriety in all of their
activities.
• Section 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.
• Campos v. Campos
• Complainants failed to present any proof of respondent’s
alleged relationship with another woman, so as to justify a
charge for immorality. There was no evidence presented that
respondent engaged in scandalous conduct that would
warrant the imposition of disciplinary action against him.
• Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Usman
• While every office in the government service is a public trust,
no position exacts a greater demand on moral righteousness
and uprightness of an individual than a seat in the Judiciary.,
Hence, judges are strictly mandated to abide with the law,
the Code of Judicial Conduct and with existing administrative
policies in order to maintain the faith of our people in the
administration of justice.
• Section 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.
• Section 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.
• Section 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.
• Section 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.
• Section 7. Judges shall inform themselves about
their personal fiduciary financial interests and
shall make reasonable efforts to be informed
about the financial interests of members of their
family.
• Section 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 covey the impression that
anyone is in a special position improperly to
influence them in the performance of judicial
duties.
• Section 9. Confidential information acquired by judges in
their judicial capacity shall not be used or disclosed by,
for any other purpose related to their judicial duties.
• Section 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.
• Section 11. Judges shall not practice law
whilst the holder of judicial office.
• Section 12. Judges may form or join
associations of judges or participate in other
organizations representing the interests of
judges.
• Section 13. Judges and members of their
families shall neither ask for, or 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.
• Section 14. Judges shall not knowingly permit court
staff of 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 of
functions.
• Section 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 of 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.
• CANON 5. EQUALITY

Ensuring equality of treatment to all

before the courts is essential to the due
performance of the judicial office.
• Section 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.

Section 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.
• Section 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.
• Section 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.
• Section 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.
• CANON 6. COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE

Competence and diligence are

prerequisites to the due performance of
judicial office.
• Section 1. The judicial duties of a judge take
precedence over all other activities.
• Section 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 court's
operations.
• Section 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.
• Section 4. Judges shall keep themselves
informed about the relevant developments of
international law, including international
conventions and other instruments establishing
human rights norms.
• Section 5. Judges shall perform all judicial duties,
including the delivery of reserved decisions,
efficiently, fairly, and with reasonable promptness.
• Section 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 and
control.
• Section 7. Judges shall not engage in conduct
incompatible with the diligent discharge of judicial
duties.
 Discipline of Members of the Bench
• Grounds:
– Serious Misconduct: implies malice or
wrongful intent and not mere error of
judgment.
– Inefficiency: negligence, incompetence,
ignorance and carelessness.
• Effect of Resignation/Retirement of Judge
 Discipline of Members of the Bench
• Institution of Disciplinary Charges
– Motu prorio by the Supreme Court or upon a
verified complaint supported by affidavits of
persons who have personal knowledge of the facts
alleged or anonymous complaint with public
record of indubitable integrity.
• Quantum of Evidence Required
–Beyond reasonable doubt- same as in criminal
trials.
–Impeachment: sui generis governed by rules
created by the impeachment court.
 Discipline of Members of the Bench
• Reinstatement: no indication that he is inspired
by corrupt motives or reprehensible purpose
in the performance of his functions
• Factors to consider:
1.Unsullied name and service record prior to
dismissal
2.Commitment to avoid situation that spur
suspicion of arbitrary conditions;
3.Complainant mellowed down in pushing from his
removal; and
4.Length of time separated from service.