Anda di halaman 1dari 5

Sources of the New Code of Judicial Conduct

According to A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC "Adopting the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine
Judiciary"

The New Code of Judicial Conduct is a result of the adoption of the universal declaration of standards for
ethical conduct of judges embodied in the Bangalore Draft. The Bangladore Draft, revised at the Round
Table Conference of Chief Justices at the Hague, itself is founded on a universal recognition of the
following:
-a competent, independent and impartial judiciary is essential for courts to fulfill their role in
upholding constitutionalism and rule of law
-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
-it is essential judges, individually and collectively, respect and honor judicial office as a public
trust and strive to enhance and maintain confidence in the judicial system

DEFINITIONS under the New Code of Judicial Conduct


In this Code, unless the context otherwise permits or requires, the following meanings shall be
attributed to the words used:
-“Court staff” includes the personal staff of the judge including law clerks.
-“Judge” means any person exercising judicial power, however designated.
-“Judge’s family” includes a judge’s spouse, son, daughter, son-in-law, daughterinlaw, 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 judge’s household.

Canon 1
Judicial Independence is a pre-requisite 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.

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.

In Sison-Barias v. Rubia, Supreme Court referred back to its decision in Joselito Rallos, et al. v Judge
Ireneo Lee Gako Jr., where it stated
"Jurisprudence repeatedly teaches that litigants are entitled to nothing less than the cold
neutrality of an impartial judge. The other elements of due process, like notice and hearing,
would become meaningless if the ultimate decision is rendered by a partial or biased judge."
Judge Rubia was found by the Court to have violated Section 1, 6, and 8 of Canon 1 of the New Code of
Judicial Conduct, as per the evident communications between the judge and the respondent’s counsel,
as well as the judge’s bias towards the latter.
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.

In Re: Letter of Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr., Justice Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal signed the
decision, notwithstanding the parties have yet to submit their respective memoranda, because Justice
Vicente Roxas was insistent of the urgency of the signing due to the impending lapse of the TRO.
According to the report accepted by the Court,
“xxx … she allowed herself to believe Justice Roxas’ misrepresentation that signing the decision
was urgent. Her compliance with certain dissembling practices of other justices of the Court, in
violation of the IRCA, showed weakness and lack of independence on her part.”
To have allowed herself to be rushed into signing the decision by Justice Roxas, such is to run counter to
the Sections 1 and 2 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct.

Section 3
Judges shall refrain from influencing in any manner the outcome of litigation or dispute pending
before another court or administrative agency.

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 private
interests of others, nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a
special position to influence the judge.

In Belen v. Belen, the judge was found to have violated Section 4, despite not using the official
letterhead of RTC Calamba but rather a personal letterhead, in letters to the Municipal Engineer, Mayor
and Agriculturist. Indicating in the letterhead the Judge’s Chambers as the point of origin and his
position as Presiding Judge, the judge was trying use the prestige of his office to influence said
government officials and employees, and to achieve with prompt and ease the purpose for which those
letters were written.

Section 5
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.

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 adjudicate.
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.

In the case of Judge Inoturan vs Judge Limsiaco, Judge Limsiaco was granted extensions multiple time
and despite the same failed and ignored orders to submit an explanation. According to the Court, for a
judge to ignore the orders of the Court would be a violation of this and following section. To comply
with the rules, directives and circulars issued by the Court is one of the foremost duties that a judge
accepts upon assumption to office.

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.

In Re: Letter of Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr., Justice Jose Sabio was the third member of an
Investigating Panel
SC accepted the following finding
"Justice Sabio Jr.s action of discussing the Meralco case with De Borja was highly inappropriate
and indiscreet. First, in talks with his brother; the second time in conversation with De Borja,
Justice Sabio, Jr. broke the shield of confidentiality that covers the disposition of cases in the
Court in order to preserve and protect the integrity and independence of the Court itself. He
ignored the injunction in Canon 1, Section 8 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the
Philippine Judiciary that: Judges shall exhibit and promote high standards of judicial conduct
(and discretion) in order to reinforce public confidence in the judiciary which is fundamental to
the maintenance of judicial independence."
In Sison-Barias v Rubia
Judge Rubia met with complainant Barias, from which meeting it was evident from then on, the
communications of Judge Rubia and the opposing counsel

Judge Rubia violated Section 1, 6 and 8


The SC referred back to Joselito Rallos, et al. v Judge Ireneo Lee Gako Jr.
"Jurisprudence repeatedly teaches that litigants are entitled to nothing less than the cold
neutrality of an impartial judge. The other elements of due process, like notice and hearing,
would become meaningless if the ultimate decision is rendered by a partial or biased judge."

In re: Conrado Vasquez Jr.


Justice Sabio was third member of the Panel of Investigators, and he has discussed, if not shared,
information he holds with, first, his brother, second, Mr. De Borja. Justice Sabio refused to yield the
chairmanship of the Special Ninth Division although the regular chairman, Justice Reyes, had returned,
even going so far as to require a comment from GSIS and SEC on Meralcos motion to have Justice Reyes
assume Chairmanship

Justice Dimaranan-Vidal signed the Meralco decision, notwithstanding the parties have yet to submit
their respective memoranda, because Justice Roxas was insistent of the urgency of the signing due to
the impending lapse of the TRO.

SC accepted the following finding


"Justice Sabio Jr.s action of discussing the Meralco case with De Borja was highly inappropriate
and indiscreet. First, in talks with his brother; the second time in conversation with De Borja,
Justice Sabio, Jr. broke the shield of confidentiality that covers the disposition of cases in the
Court in order to preserve and protect the integrity and independence of the Court itself. He
ignored the injunction in Canon 1, Section 8 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the
Philippine Judiciary that: Judges shall exhibit and promote high standards of judicial conduct
(and discretion) in order to reinforce public confidence in the judiciary which is fundamental to
the maintenance of judicial independence."

These indiscreet and imprudent conversations regarding the Meralco case, with his brother and Mr. De
Borja, violation of Section 8 of Canon 1 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct, and his actuations in the
chairmanship dispute with Justice Reyes constitute simple misconduct.

SC accepted the following report


"Justice Dimaranan-Vidal deviated from the IRCA when she allowed herself to be rushed by
Justice Roxas to sign the Meralco decision on July 8, 2008, without reading the parties
memoranda and without the deliberation among members of the Division required by the IRCA.
She knew that the TRO would not expire until July 30, 2008 some three (3) weeks away from
July 8, 2008 yet she allowed herself to believe Justice Roxas misrepresentation that signing the
decision was urgent. Her compliance with certain dissembling practices of other justices of the
Court, in violation of the IRCA, showed weakness and lack of independence on her part."

Allowing a fellow justice to induce her to deviate from established procedure constitutes conduct
unbecoming a justice for which Justice Dimaranan-Vidal should be ADMONISHED to be more
circumspect in the performance of her judicial duties.
Belen v Belen
Judge Belen wrote to the Municipal Engineer, the Mayor, and the Municipal Agriculturist of Alaminos,
Laguna. His letters there indicating that the point of origin of the same was the Chamber of the Judge
and he was the Presiding Judge.

OCA, affirmed by Investigating Justice and well-taken by the SC, holds that such an act, even if not the
official letterhead of the RTC of Calamba, was the attempt of the Judge to use the prestige of his judicial
office for personal interest. A violation of Canon 1 Section 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct, Judge
Belen was trying use the prestige of his office to influence said government officials and employees, and
to achieve with prompt and ease the purpose for which those letters were written.

Similar cases:
Oktubre v Velasco
Rosauro v Kallos
Ladignon v Garong

Judge Inoturan v Judge Limsiaco


Judge Limsiaco was found guilty of ignorance of the law, moved for extension of time twice, despite
which still failed to file MR and explanation. Required to file explanation not to be cited in contempt,
failed, cited, filed Manifestation and Urgent Motion for Extension of Time to File Explanation where he
cited poor health, extension granted once more, failed to file Explanation again.
Guinanao filed Delay in Disposition of Case, Judge cited in contempt. His cases now consolidated.

The SC stated
Compliance with the rules, directives and circulars issued by the Court is one of the foremost duties that
a judge accepts upon assumption to office. This duty is verbalized in Canon 1 of the New Code of Judicial
Conduct, Sections 7 & 8

Anda mungkin juga menyukai