Legal and Judicial Ethics Midterms Transcript 20131

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 7/25/2019 Legal and Judicial Ethics Midterms Transcript 20131

    1/81

    Problem Areas in Legal Ethics Midterms, 2013)

    EH 501 Moot Court

    _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    PALE team

    Abejero, Aguilar, Bautista, Dacay, Go, Lim, Llanera, Marquez, Ocupe, Pelayo

    1

    JUDICIAL ETHICS

    Definition of Terms

    Ethics the discipline dealing with what is good and bad, or right and

    wrong.

    When do we consider something as right or good?

    - If it conforms to what he or she ought to do. Ethics then presupposes

    a standard to be followed.

    Legal Ethics the science treating of what an attorney ought to do in

    relation to the court, to his client, to his colleagues, and to the public.

    Judicial Ethicsthe branch of moral science which treats of the right andproper conduct to be observed by judges in administering justice.

    It is a legal and moral mechanism that keeps and maintains the

    trust and confidence of the people in the judicial system.

    Why is judicial ethics important to lawyers? Why study it?

    - The administration of justice is a partnership between the lawyer and

    the judge. It is a joint responsibility of both the judge and the lawyer. If

    the judge expects the lawyer to do his part well, there is also a

    corollary and equal duty on the part of the judge to exert his utmosteffort in the dispensation of justice. So real administration of justice

    could only be accomplished if both the lawyer and the judge are aware

    of the corresponding ethical obligations of the other. Only in this

    manner can each of them minimize occasions for delinquency; and

    consequently, help attain the ends of justice. What good is it if all

    lawyers are ethical if the judges are not? So it is a mission for both

    lawyers and judges.

    A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC Adopting the NEW CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT for

    the Philippine Judiciary - Took effect June 1, 2004

    Why did the SC promulgate a new code?

    -

    To manifest the Philippines solidarity with the universal clamor for a

    universal declaration of judicial ethics.

    xxx (4th

    whereas)

    WHEREAS, the adoption of the universal declaration of standards for

    ethical conduct of judges embodied in the Bangalore Draft as revised at

    the Round Table Conference of Chief Justices at The Hague is imperative

    not only to update and correlate the Code of Judicial Conduct and the

    Canons of Judicial Ethics adopted for the Philippines, but also to stress

    the Philippines solidarity with the universal clamor for a universal code

    of judicial ethics.

    Xxx

    This universal declaration is contained in what we call the Bangalore Draft,

    which in turn contains the universal declaration of judicial ethical

    standards.

    WHEREAS, at the Round Table Meeting of Chief Justices held at the Peace

    Palace, The Hague, on 25-26 November 2002, at which the Philippine

    Supreme Court was represented by the Chief Justice (Hilario Davide) and

    Associate Justice Reynato S. Puno, the Bangalore Draft of the Code of

    Judicial Conduct adopted by the Judicial Group on Strengthening Judicial

    Integrity was deliberated upon and approved after incorporating therein

    http://en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php?title=Supreme_Court_of_the_Philippineshttp://en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php?title=Supreme_Court_of_the_Philippineshttp://en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php?title=Chief_Justice_of_the_Philippineshttp://en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php?title=Reynato_S._Punohttp://en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php?title=Reynato_S._Punohttp://en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php?title=Chief_Justice_of_the_Philippineshttp://en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php?title=Supreme_Court_of_the_Philippineshttp://en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php?title=Supreme_Court_of_the_Philippineshttp://en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php?title=Supreme_Court_of_the_Philippines
  • 7/25/2019 Legal and Judicial Ethics Midterms Transcript 20131

    2/81

    Problem Areas in Legal Ethics Midterms, 2013)

    EH 501 Moot Court

    _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    PALE team

    Abejero, Aguilar, Bautista, Dacay, Go, Lim, Llanera, Marquez, Ocupe, Pelayo

    2

    several amendments;

    WHEREAS, the Bangalore Draft, as amended, is intended to be the

    Universal Declaration of Judicial Standards applicable in all judiciaries;

    WHEREAS, the Bangalore Draft is founded upon 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; 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 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;

    xxx (4th

    whereas)

    NOW, THEREFORE, the Court hereby adopts this New Code of Judicial

    Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary.

    Does the new code supersede or overturn the old code?

    - NO. It only correlates the existing judicial ethics rules. It adds some

    new sections also not found in the old code.

    -

    The preamble of the Old Code says, An honorable competent andindependent judiciary exists to administer justice and thus promote

    the unity of the country, the stability of government, and the well-

    being of the people.

    - The New Code of Conduct will update and correlate the Code

    of Judicial Conduct and the Canons of Judicial Ethics. So we

    have the Code of Judicial Conduct, we also have the even

    earlier form of ethical rule that is the Canons of Judicial

    Ethics. All these are not overturned by the new code. The

    new code only updates and correlates the existing laws on

    ethics.

    In the new code, there are seven cardinal values that every judge should

    possess. And these are embodied in six canons.

    7 Cardinal Values

    1. Independence

    2. Integrity

    3. Impartiality

    4. Propriety

    5. Equality

    6. Competence

    7.

    Diligence

    CANON 1: INDEPENDENCE

    Judicial independence is a pre-requisite to the rule of law and a

    fundamental guarantee of a fa ir t rial. A jud ge shall therefore uphold and

    exemplify judicial independence in both its individual and institutional

    aspects.

    That is how importance judicial independence is. Without it, there could be

    no fair trial.

  • 7/25/2019 Legal and Judicial Ethics Midterms Transcript 20131

    3/81

    Problem Areas in Legal Ethics Midterms, 2013)

    EH 501 Moot Court

    _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    PALE team

    Abejero, Aguilar, Bautista, Dacay, Go, Lim, Llanera, Marquez, Ocupe, Pelayo

    3

    Two aspects of judicial Independence

    1. Individual Judicial Independence

    - focuses on the particular judge and seeks to ensure his or her

    ability to decide cases with autonomy. The judge himself as a

    person must be independent.

    2. Institutional Judicial Independence

    - focuses on the independence of the judiciary as a branch of

    government. So the judiciary as an institution must be

    independent also.

    Both are important. You cannot choose one. So when you say

    independence of the judiciary, you refer to individual and institutional

    judicial independence.

    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.

    Simply put, how should judges decide?

    - Based merely on the facts of the case and the law applicable to the

    facts of the case. If a judge decides a case because of extraneous

    factors, then there is no independence.

    Two possible sources of influence:

    1. Internal Source

    - Comes from the biases, prejudices, or preconceived notions of the

    judge.

    Example: There is a judge in a criminal case that sees to it that he

    must look at the body of the accused, and see if there are tattoos.

    If there are tattoos, the judge would think that that person is

    guilty. So the judge is influenced by his prejudices.

    2. External Source

    - Comes from outside the judge. Political, social, familial, etc.

    -

    The judge is being pressured by the governor, or family members,

    or relatives.

    - Judge dismissed a case based on vague grounds upon his receipt

    of death threats. That is not allowed. Judges must be

    independent.

    How to measure independence

    - The judge must only decide cases based on the facts and the law and

    not on some other source of influence.

    Ramirez v. Corpus-Macandog

    The judge here admitted that she rendered rulings based upon the

    directives of a government official. In her defense, she said it was a

    revolutionary government, and therefore, she found it fit to succumb to

    the pressure of the government official.

  • 7/25/2019 Legal and Judicial Ethics Midterms Transcript 20131

    4/81

    Problem Areas in Legal Ethics Midterms, 2013)

    EH 501 Moot Court

    _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    PALE team

    Abejero, Aguilar, Bautista, Dacay, Go, Lim, Llanera, Marquez, Ocupe, Pelayo

    4

    SC denounced the judges act and said that it was a patent betrayal of

    public trust and a revelation of her weak moral character. Thus, judges

    should not allow public officials, local or national, to influence their

    decisions and actions in judicial proceedings before them.

    Libarios v. Dabalos

    There is a rally conducted outside the courtroom. The rally was conducted

    by the supporters of the complainant. Because of that rally, the judge was

    overwhelmed. So the judge issued a warrant of arrest and fixed the bail of

    the accused without the required hearing.

    SC said that there was unjustified haste in the actions of the judge. A judge

    must diligently ascertain the facts and applicable law, unswayed by

    partisan or personal interest. So it was very clear here that the judge acted

    in that way because of the rally conducted outside.

    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.

    The judiciary could be a very close knit brotherhood. But regardless of the

    close relations, the camaraderie and compaerismo, judges must make

    sure that they remain independent from their judicial colleagues.

    In collegiate courts, lets say CA, 19th

    division, and 1 division is composed of

    3 justices. They have to decide in division.

    Are these 3 justices still independent from one another?

    - YES. They still retain their independence from the other justice. Even

    in collegiate courts, this still applies.

    - Justices, even in the same division, are free to dissent if they do not

    agree with the majority opinion.

    SECTION 3. Judges shall refrain from influencing in any manner the

    outcome of litigation or dispute pending before another court or

    administrative agency.

    If judges must be independent from their colleagues, they should not also

    wield influence on their judicial colleagues. You extend not just to other

    judicial colleagues but also other administrative or quasi-judicial bodies.

    In a bar exam question, the judge wrote to the NLRC commissioner:

    Dear NLRC, my wife is a party in a case before you. This letter is to inform

    you that everything my wife said in her affidavits and pleadings are

    untrue.

    In other words, that the judge is telling them not to believe his wife.

    Reason of the judge was that he was merely interested in upholding the

    truth? Ethical or unethical?

    - Unethical. Even if it is for a noble purpose, still it constituted influence

    upon a quasi-judicial tribunal.

  • 7/25/2019 Legal and Judicial Ethics Midterms Transcript 20131

    5/81

    Problem Areas in Legal Ethics Midterms, 2013)

    EH 501 Moot Court

    _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    PALE team

    Abejero, Aguilar, Bautista, Dacay, Go, Lim, Llanera, Marquez, Ocupe, Pelayo

    5

    CASE

    The judge entered his appearance in a court case representing himself,

    signing the pleading wherein he indicated that he is the presiding judge of

    RTC branch x and then appending to the pleading a copy of his oath of

    office with a picture of his oath taking.

    SC: Unethical. This was intended to put pressure on the fellow judge.

    SECTION 4. Judges shall not allow family, social, or other relationship 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 sp ecial position to

    influence the judge.

    The position of the judge is very delicate. The judge may not be aware that

    the people whom he trusts could already be selling him, without him

    knowing it.

    Example:

    Close associates, or even family members, might say, give me 50k and youwill win the case before my uncle judge. But in reality that nephew or niece

    already knew the decision beforehand because when he visited his uncle

    judge, he saw in the table the draft decision. The nephew already knew

    that he would win. So taking the opportunity to earn money, he went to

    that party about to win and asked 50k.

    So, the judge must be able to safeguard himself from influence peddling

    people. Especially those close to him, especially those people that he trust.

    Section 4 reminds judges of this danger and so they should do their best

    not to let their public office advance the private interests of others.

    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.

    So this section discourages influence peddling by members of the judges

    inner circle.

    Judges should brace themselves knowing that by their assumption to

    judicial office, people close to them might in the future seek favors or

    intend to influence them. Judges should be prepared to handle these

    situations and must be ready to maintain their independence in the midst

    of all these external influences.

    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.

    All throughout the Code, there is a similar theme: the actual possession of

    the quality of the judge is just as important as the appearance. So,

    APPEARANCE is just as important as the actual quality itself.

    Example: Judges must not only be independent, but must also appear to

    be independent.

  • 7/25/2019 Legal and Judicial Ethics Midterms Transcript 20131

    6/81

    Problem Areas in Legal Ethics Midterms, 2013)

    EH 501 Moot Court

    _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    PALE team

    Abejero, Aguilar, Bautista, Dacay, Go, Lim, Llanera, Marquez, Ocupe, Pelayo

    6

    Even the appearance of impropriety, even when there is no proof of actual

    impropriety, it is already ethically actionable.

    It could be very difficult for the judge to remain independent from the

    two other departments. How?

    a. The president, executive branch, appoints judges.

    b. The Congress, legislative branch, enacts the budget through the

    appropriations law.

    So it could be very tempting on the part of the judge to have inappropriate

    connections because of the beneficence it could have received from the

    other two branches. Lets say you are appointed as a judge by PNoy. So to

    the mind of the judge, PNoy is the best president ever. Unconsciously, the

    judge, because of that mindframe, might tend to favor not just the

    president but even the allies of the president in cases before him. Just one

    call from the president. So, INAPPROPRIATE CONNECTIONS are not

    allowed. This is a very tall order but this is very important to obtain justice.

    Allowance from the LGUs this is a very hot topic. Judges receive

    allowance from LGUs. CA justices for instance, they receive allowance from

    the City of Cebu, 45k, and from the Province, 15k, in addition to salaries

    and the usual allowances given to the judges by the SC. So why is this a hot

    topic?

    c. Judges receive allowances from LGUs. LGUs could be parties to a

    case before the judge. The other party will now entertain a

    reasonable suspicion of the impartiality of the judge. And

    subsequently, the other party loses. Even if there is no actual bias,

    there is the appearance of bias. That is the criticism of the

    practice of receiving allowances from LGUs, but this is allowed.

    Regardless of all the criticisms and protests against it, it is allowed

    because judges, if they are really to rely on the budget coming

    from the SC, the SC could not afford to give those amounts to

    judges and justices. And these amounts are, according to the SC,commensurate to the stature and to the hazards that go with the

    work of the judge.

    As long as judges remain to be guided by section 5 and they remain free

    from appropriate connections with the LGU giving allowances to them,

    there would be no ethical violation.

    CASES

    1. Judge makes it a point to invite Sanggunian members to his chamber

    for a quick chat before he begins the hearing for that day.

    2. Judge referred the matter of transfer of court employees to the vice

    mayor. That is improper because any personnel action under the

    judiciary falls under the administrative jurisdiction of the court

    administrator. The judge should not have referred it to the vice mayor.

    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 toadjudicate.

    Judges are independent in relation to society, but not really withdrawal

    from society. Judges are not required to be hermits and not have friends.

  • 7/25/2019 Legal and Judicial Ethics Midterms Transcript 20131

    7/81

    Problem Areas in Legal Ethics Midterms, 2013)

    EH 501 Moot Court

    _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    PALE team

    Abejero, Aguilar, Bautista, Dacay, Go, Lim, Llanera, Marquez, Ocupe, Pelayo

    7

    Judges are not required to live in seclusion for as long as they are

    independent from society.

    The more important portion here is independence in relation to the

    particular parties to a dispute which he or she has to adjudicate.

    Ethical violation: Judge was found to have used the service vehicle of a

    party for one year for free.

    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 independen ce.

    There is a high level of intellectual, as well as moral fitness that judges

    must comply with because the judges are the visible representations of the

    law and of the judiciary.

    Judge was disciplined for always getting drunk at parties. SC said it is very

    improper behavior on the part of the judge.

    ___________________________________________________________

    CANON 2: INTEGRITY

    Integrity is essential not only to the proper discharge of the judicial office

    but also to the personal demeanor of judges.

    When you say integrity, you really cannot separate the judge as a judge,

    and the judge as a person. Integrity has to be taken in its entirety. So the

    judge must not only be a good judge, but must also be a good person.

    When applying for judgeship or promotion in the judiciary, there is the

    duty to disclose all disciplinary, criminal and civil cases. Many judges have

    been suspended, or dismissed from the judiciary because of the failure to

    disclose pending cases.

    SECTION 1. Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above

    reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in view of a reasonable observer.

    Again, appearance is just as important. Judges have been disciplined for

    lack of good moral character, both in their private and public capacities.

    Some prohibited acts:

    1. Accepting bribes

    2. Going to casinos and cockpits

    3. Delay in rendering decisions

    4. Ignorance of the law

    5. Voyeurism

  • 7/25/2019 Legal and Judicial Ethics Midterms Transcript 20131

    8/81

    Problem Areas in Legal Ethics Midterms, 2013)

    EH 501 Moot Court

    _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    PALE team

    Abejero, Aguilar, Bautista, Dacay, Go, Lim, Llanera, Marquez, Ocupe, Pelayo

    8

    Gambling case

    In a case, the judge said, Yes, I was at the casino but I just accompanied

    my wife, it was my wife who played the slot machines, I just watched.

    Still disciplined by the SC. If judges would go to casinos or cockpits, the

    person who sees him would think that the judge is gambling. Even if

    casinos are regulated forms of gambling, judges are still not allowed to go

    there. That person looking at the judge, would think that the judge is a

    gambler, and then unwittingly in his mind, that person is doing

    mathematics, how much is the judges salary, etc. How can he afford this

    very expensive vice?Then another thought forms, this judge is like this

    or like that. There is ethical violation, the appearance of impropriety is

    enough.

    Ignorance of the lawobviously, this shows incompetence. But there are

    also instances where in addition to lack of competence, it could also mean

    lack of integrity.

    When would it indicate lack of integrity?

    If the law involved is basic and elementary, it is inconceivable that the

    judge did not know that law. Therefore, the judge is either too

    incompetent or undeserving of the title he holds, or he is too vicious thatthe oversight was deliberately done, resulting to a travesty of justice.

    Examples:

    1. The judges application of the indeterminate sentence law was

    inaccurate. In many decisions, he always misapplied the ISL. So the SC

    said that this is very basic and elementary. He is not just incompetent,

    he also lacks integrity.

    2. The judge ordered the imprisonment of the lawyer of the accused,

    because the lawyer did not appear at the time of the promulgation of

    judgment. Can you imprison the lawyer? No. Its very basic.

    SECTION 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.

    You might think that the most important part of the judges task is to

    render fair decisions. But that is not the only important thing. Equally

    important is the PROCESS reaching that decision. The parties might still

    entertain the idea that the judge is biased or prejudiced because there

    seems to be no fairness in the process.

    Upon his assumption to office, a judge ceases to become an ordinary

    mortal. He becomes the visible representation of the law, and more

    importantly, of justice. He must, therefore, become the embodiment of

    competence, integrity and independence.

    Basic policy:the judges conduct in his private and public life can always be

    subjected to scrutiny.

  • 7/25/2019 Legal and Judicial Ethics Midterms Transcript 20131

    9/81

    Problem Areas in Legal Ethics Midterms, 2013)

    EH 501 Moot Court

    _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    PALE team

    Abejero, Aguilar, Bautista, Dacay, Go, Lim, Llanera, Marquez, Ocupe, Pelayo

    9

    CASES:

    1. Judge forcibly kissed court employees.

    2. Judge punched another judge in the face after a disagreement over

    the use of an office table.

    3. Having sexual intercourse with a 15-year old

    4. Judge held to be devoid of any integrity.

    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.

    So the judge should police the justice system. If the judge learns of some

    abuses committed by court personnel, the judge must not hesitate to

    undertake the necessary investigative or administrative action. Same thing

    for lawyers, if the judge learns that the lawyer engages in unethical or

    illegal courses of action, it is incumbent upon the judge to expose said

    lawyer. The judges owe it to the administration of justice, to be vigilant not

    just on themselves but also on the other participants in the justice system.

    __________________________________________________________

    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.

    A judge should not only render a just, correct and impartial decision but

    should do so in such a manner as to be free from any suspicion as to its

    fairness and impartiality and as to its integrity.

    Although the senator-judges are not really members of the judiciary, a very

    good example would come to mind. But you recall some senator-judges

    who may have acted in such a way that their impartiality may be

    questioned?

    What good is a fair and impartial decision if the process did not seem fair?

    The judge may be seen to be too friendly to the defense, and too hostile to

    the prosecution. Lets say there is nothing wrong with the decision , it is

    perfect, still the same, it is tainted with doubts and suspicions as to the

    fairness of the judge. So judges must not only concern themselves of the

    final product of the case which is the decision. Everything, all the

    proceedings that lead to the decision must be fair, and must appear to be

    fair in the eyes of the reasonable observer. Even the appearance of

    impartiality is enough to discipline the judge.

    EXTRAJDUCIAL SOURCE RULE

    this is the standard used to know whether the judge is partial or not. To

    sustain a claim of bias or prejudice, the resolution or opinion or decision of

    the court must be based upon an extrajudicial source, that is, some

  • 7/25/2019 Legal and Judicial Ethics Midterms Transcript 20131

    10/81

    Problem Areas in Legal Ethics Midterms, 2013)

    EH 501 Moot Court

    _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    PALE team

    Abejero, Aguilar, Bautista, Dacay, Go, Lim, Llanera, Marquez, Ocupe, Pelayo

    10

    influence other than the facts and the law presented in the courtroom. So

    this is the gauge to measure if there is fairness.

    SECTION 1.Judges shall perform their judicial duties without favor, bias, or

    prejudice.

    What is required of judges is objectivity. An independent judiciary does not

    mean that judges can resolve specific disputes entirely as they please.

    There are limits to judges adjudication. They cannot innovate at pleasure.

    A judge is not a knight-errant, roaming at will in pursuit of his own ideal of

    beauty or goodness. He is not to yield to spasmodic sentiment, to vague

    and unregulated benevolence.

    It is not uncommon among lawyer circles that some judges tend to develop

    a reputation. Some judges are known to be biased in favor of children in

    child abuse cases, or this judge has a reputation to be tender to the rights

    of the accused, etc.

    Judges are reminded not to let their personal biases, their personal

    convictions, their ideals of goodness, clout their judgment. There are limits

    to how they adjudicate. And they must adjudicate according to the facts

    and law, and not for some other reasons. Otherwise, there is a tendencythat the lawyers will talk, and wittingly or unwittingly, the judge finds

    himself with a reputation.

    And although a speedy determination of an action implies a speedy trial,

    speed is not the chief objective of a trial.

    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 a nd of the judiciary.

    What is it to be like Caesars wife? Judges are said to be like Caesars wife,

    meaning, they should be above reproach and beyond suspicion. Its not

    easy to be a judge.

    Examples:

    1. Having lunch with a litigant

    2. Standing as a sponsor in a litigants sons wedding

    3. Using the car of the litigant as a service vehicle

    4.

    Undue interference in the direct and cross examination of

    witnesses judges can ask questions for as long as the questions

    are clarificatory only. But if the judge went to the extent of cross-

    examining the defense witnesses for instance, what will the other

    party think? The judge is now taking the cudgels for the

    prosecution, and therefore, the cold neutrality of an impartial

    judge is destroyed. There is no more perception of cold neutrality.

    So clarificatory questioning only, but not to the extent of

    examining witnesses.

    5.

    A judges inebriated behavior and intolerant behavior during

    parties are reprehensible. A judge who yields to the strength of

    the spirits and acts like an uninhibited drunkard in a public place,

    demeans his judicial office, strips himself of his dignity of his man,

    and disrobes the court of the respect of the people it serves.

  • 7/25/2019 Legal and Judicial Ethics Midterms Transcript 20131

    11/81

    Problem Areas in Legal Ethics Midterms, 2013)

    EH 501 Moot Court

    _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    PALE team

    Abejero, Aguilar, Bautista, Dacay, Go, Lim, Llanera, Marquez, Ocupe, Pelayo

    11

    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.

    Thats the primary function of a judge, to hear and decide cases. That

    being the primary duty of a judge, the judge must make sure that he will

    minimize occasions that he will have to disqualify himself from hearing

    cases. So judges are required to regulate their business activities, their

    social connections, with the end view of minimizing their disqualification in

    cases before them.

    Dionisio v. Escao

    A judge should abstain from making personal investments in enterprises

    which are actually involved in litigation in his court, and after admission to

    the bench, he should not retain such investments previously made longer

    than a period sufficient to enable him to dispose of them without serious

    loss.

    Scenario

    You are a judge, and you are thinking of opening a business. Would it bewise and ethical for you to open a surety bonding company which is

    connected to your profession?

    - No. the judge should stay away from such investments.

    If prior to appointment as a judge, the judge is an employee, a manager of

    a surety bonding company, what should the judge do?

    - Resign as a manager. There is obvious conflict of interest. And

    because of his position as manager, there is more probability that

    he will come in contact with persons who will go to him as judge.

    What if he is the owner of the surety bonding company, and then he is

    appointed as judge thereafter, what should the judge do?

    - Divest. He should not retain such investments previously made

    longer than a period sufficient to enable him to dispose of them

    without serious loss. There should be a divestment of interests

    and shareholdings if there is conflict of interest as provided under

    RA 6713.

    Reasonable time RA 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for

    Public Officials and Employees), Section 9

    - If there is conflict of interest, the public official must resign from the

    position in any private enterprise within 30 DAYS from assumption of

    office.

    - If not just mere employment, like you are the owner, then the second

    one applies to you, you divest from shareholdings or interest within 60

    DAYS from assumption of office.

    CASE

    1. The judge acted as broker together with the complainant in the sale of

    lots to the Church of Jesus Christ xxx.

    SC: By allowing himself to act as agent in the sale of the subject property,

    respondent judge has increased the possibility of his disqualification to act

    as an impartial judge in the event that a dispute involving the said contract

    of sale arises.

  • 7/25/2019 Legal and Judicial Ethics Midterms Transcript 20131

    12/81

    Problem Areas in Legal Ethics Midterms, 2013)

    EH 501 Moot Court

    _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    PALE team

    Abejero, Aguilar, Bautista, Dacay, Go, Lim, Llanera, Marquez, Ocupe, Pelayo

    12

    Also, the possibility that the parties to the sale might plead before his

    court is not remote. And his business dealings with them might not only

    create suspicions as to his fairness, but also as to his ability to render it in a

    manner that is free from any suspicion as to its fairness and impartiality

    and also as to the judges integrity.

    So judges must regulate their business activities, in a way that it will not

    severely affect their competency, their qualification to hear the case.

    2. There is another case involving an MCTC judge in a very remote

    locality. Still the same he is also realtor in addition to being a judge. As

    a realtor, obviously he dealt with properties, anywhere in the

    Philippines, including properties within his territorial jurisdiction.

    That practice was questioned because what if those transactions over

    real properties figured in cases filed before him, his impartiality will

    now be questioned because he intervened as realtor, as the agent or

    broker in the transaction. Another difficulty is because it was a circuit

    trial court in a very remote locality, he is the only judge there, he could

    not easily inhibit because there is no other judge to take the case.

    He was reprimanded by the SC, even if his reasons may be sound. He

    said that he was sending children to school using the income he is

    earning from his dealings. But notwithstanding his noble intention, the

    SC reminded the judge of the price in exchange for the judicial

    position. And the price is that he must regulate, if not minimize

    business activities that will give ground for disqualification from cases

    before him, especially in this instance where he cannot inhibit because

    there is no other judge.

    3. The judge lends money at unconscionable interests and files suits for

    collection at the place where he is judge, to enable him to take

    advantage of his position. Reprimanded.

    SECTION 4. Judges shall not knowingly, while a proceeding is before, or

    could come before, them to 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.

    Trial by publicity - There is trial by publicity if the judge is swayed by

    overwhelming public opinion, hence, he is now unable to decide

    independently based on the facts and law but based on overwhelming

    public opinion.

    Judges should not make any comment that might reasonably be expected

    to affect the outcome of such proceeding.

    Castillo v. Juan

    In every litigation, the manner and attitude of the judge are crucial to

    everyone concerned. He should, in the performance of his functions, avoid

    side comments, side remarks, hasty conclusions, loose statements, or

    gratuitous utterances that could form the basis for erroneous impressionsin the mind of those who hear and who could conclude that he is

    prejudging the case or the issues that come before him.

    Bar Exam Question

    Judge advised the parties to plea bargain or compromise. That by itself

    would not be so unethical. What made it unethical was the way he

    advised. Accused, I suggest that you plead guilty to a lesser offense.

  • 7/25/2019 Legal and Judicial Ethics Midterms Transcript 20131

    13/81

    Problem Areas in Legal Ethics Midterms, 2013)

    EH 501 Moot Court

    _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    PALE team

    Abejero, Aguilar, Bautista, Dacay, Go, Lim, Llanera, Marquez, Ocupe, Pelayo

    13

    Anyway, I think the prosecution will accept your plea because their

    evidence is not so strong.Or Defendant, I suggest that you compromise

    because you are losing.

    So those side comments might give the impression that the judge has

    already prejudged the case. The first hearing has not even been done yet,

    and yet the judge has already prejudged the case. So the judge should not

    make any comment that might be misconstrued or that might create

    impressions on anyone that is watching.

    SECTION 5. Judges shall disqualify themselves from participating in any

    proceeding 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 member of his or her family, has economic interest inthe 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 a counsel during their association, or the judge

    was a material witness therein;

    e) The judges ruling in the lower court is the subject of review;

    f ) The judg e i s related by consa nguinity or affinity to a p arty 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 the controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or

    any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome

    of the proceedings;

    Take note of the word shall. Judges shalldisqualify. This is mandatory,

    there is no discretion involved. The judge has no other choice but to

    disqualify himself. In the instances of mandatory disqualification, the law

    itself conclusively presumed that the judge is unable to decide the matter

    impartially.

    a) The judge has

    a. actual bias or prejudice concerning a party or

    b. personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the

    proceedings

    Judge is riding a bus, and then the bus collided with another bus. The judge

    was there to witness everything. If a case for reckless imprudence xxx filed

    against one of the drivers is raffled to the judge, can the judge disqualify

    himself from hearing the case?

  • 7/25/2019 Legal and Judicial Ethics Midterms Transcript 20131

    14/81

    Problem Areas in Legal Ethics Midterms, 2013)

    EH 501 Moot Court

    _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    PALE team

    Abejero, Aguilar, Bautista, Dacay, Go, Lim, Llanera, Marquez, Ocupe, Pelayo

    14

    - YES. The disqualification is mandatory. The judge has personal

    knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts. The judge may be a witness

    but he cannot hear the case.

    b) The judge previously

    a. served as a lawyer or

    b. was a material witness in the matter in controversy;

    c) The judge or member of his or her family, has economic interest in the

    outcome of the matter in controversy

    Self-explanatory. Again, recall the definition of Judges family.

    Judges familyincludes a

    a. judges spouse,

    b. son,

    c. daughter,

    d. son-in-law,

    e. daughter-in-law, and

    f. any other relative by consanguinity or affinity

    i. within the sixth civil degree, or

    ii. person who is a companion or employee of the judge and

    iii.

    who lives in the judges household

    d) The judge served as

    a. executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or lawyer in the case or

    matter in controversy, or

    b. a former associate of the judge served as a counsel during their

    association, or

    c. the judge was a material witness therein

    e) The judges ruling in the lower court is the subject of review

    From RTC judge, the judge is promoted CA justice. One of the cases raffled

    to him was an appeal of his decision as RTC judge. Can the judge disqualify

    himself?

    YES. Mandatory disqualification. He cannot review his own decision.

    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

    relationship to the lawyer.

    If lawyer4th

    civil degree

    If litigantup to the 6th

    civil degree

    g) The judge knows that his or her spouse or child

    a. has a financial interest,

    i. as heir,

    ii.

    legatee,iii. creditor,

    iv. fiduciary,

    v. or otherwise, in the subject matter in the controversy or in a

    party to the proceeding,

    b. or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the

    outcome of the proceedings;

  • 7/25/2019 Legal and Judicial Ethics Midterms Transcript 20131

    15/81

    Problem Areas in Legal Ethics Midterms, 2013)

    EH 501 Moot Court

    _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    PALE team

    Abejero, Aguilar, Bautista, Dacay, Go, Lim, Llanera, Marquez, Ocupe, Pelayo

    15

    Bar Exam Question

    A bus driven by X collided with and damaged the car of Y. In the criminal

    case filed for reckless imprudence xxx Judge G acquitted the accused X.

    Subsequently, a separate civil action for damages was filed against X. The

    civil case was raffled again to the sala of Judge G. Can Judge G be

    disqualified from hearing the case? He was the same judge who heard the

    criminal case and acquitted X. Can he be disqualified from hearing the civil

    case for damages?

    - NO. No ground for mandatory disqualification. He has no personal

    knowledge. He only has his knowledge as a judge from the records of

    the case. That does not translate to personal knowledge.

    - He has no economic interest.

    - He is not reviewing his decision of acquittal.

    -

    It is an entirely separate case. He cannot be disqualified.

    VOLUNTARY INHIBITION

    Rule 137, Rules of Court provides for disqualification of judicial officers.

    Section 1:

    1st

    paragraph: similar to what we have just read, grounds of mandatory

    disqualification

    2nd

    paragraph: the new code of judicial conduct, the old code does not

    expressly provide for voluntary inhibition, but you have heard of judges

    voluntarily inhibiting. That is allowed. But the authority is not the Code of

    Judicial Conduct, but Rule 137, Section 1, Rules of Court, particularly the

    2nd

    paragraph which says:

    A judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion, disqualify

    himself from sitting in a case, for just or valid reasons other than

    those mentioned above.

    Even if there are no grounds for mandatory disqualification, a judge may

    still inhibit from a case. It says for just and valid reasons. That is voluntary

    inhibition. It essentially involves discretion on the part of the judge. It is

    strictly a matter of conscience.

    What is the standard to be followed by a judge in examining himself?

    - The judge must ask himself whether a losing party could entertain a

    reasonable belief that the judge was partial to the prevailing party. It

    is not whether the judge was actually partial or not. So even the

    appearance of partiality, the judge should already determine if there

    could be the appearance of partiality, or bias, or prejudice.

    Examples:

    1. Utang na loob in a case the lawyer appearing before the judge

    was the same lawyer member of the JBC who recommended the

    appointment of the judge to the bench. Valid ground to

    voluntarily inhibit, but not a ground for mandatory

    disqualification.

    2.

    Counsel of a party in a case before the judge is also the judgescounsel in a separate case

    Since voluntary inhibition is strictly a matter of conscience, there could be

    many grounds. The more important question is, are there grounds which

    the Supreme Court has already declared insufficient grounds for voluntary

    inhibition?

  • 7/25/2019 Legal and Judicial Ethics Midterms Transcript 20131

    16/81

    Problem Areas in Legal Ethics Midterms, 2013)

    EH 501 Moot Court

    _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    PALE team

    Abejero, Aguilar, Bautista, Dacay, Go, Lim, Llanera, Marquez, Ocupe, Pelayo

    16

    1. Counsel for a party has filed an administrative case against the

    judgeit is not a ground for voluntary inhibition. The mere act of

    filing an administrative case against the judge is insufficient

    ground for voluntary inhibition. In the absence of evidence that

    the judge was in fact prejudiced against the lawyer, you cannot

    presume bias or prejudice. That cannot be presumed.

    - Also, a contrary rule would lead to unpleasant consequences.

    Imagine if a judge can just voluntarily inhibit if you have filed

    an administrative case against him, it now becomes easy for

    lawyers to get rid of judges that they do not like.

    - So mere filing does not translate to evidence of actual

    prejudice. There should be separate evidence showing that

    the judge really cannot anymore decide the case fairly.

    2. Mere friendshipthe judge is a close friend of a lawyer appearing

    before him. Not a ground. Judges should be independent from

    society, but they are not required to withdraw from society.

    Judges are not required to drop all their friends and live a very

    lonely, solitary life. So it is expected for judges to have friends

    within the legal circle, they are expected to have lawyer friends.

    Again, in the absence of actual bias.

    3. Counsel is a classmate of the judge

    Because voluntary inhibition is discretionary, in many cases, a mandamus

    suit did not prosper. It cannot be compelled by mandamus or prohibition,

    generally. But there are exceptions:

    Pagoda Philippines, Inc. v. Universal Canning, Inc.

    While ordinarily mandamus will not prosper to compel a discretionary act,

    the writ shall issue in instances of gross abuse of discretion, manifest

    injustice or palpable excess of authority, equivalent to denial of a settled

    right to which the petitioner is entitled, and when there is no other plain,

    speedy and adequate remedy. This court has recognized that a judges

    decision to refuse to act on account of some disqualification is not

    conclusive and his competency may be determined on an application for

    mandamus to compel him to act.

    In this case, the judge inhibited from hearing the case. In her order of

    inhibition, the judge was able to explain her actions, and the judge was

    even able to justify all her actions in the case. But then, the judge inhibited

    nonetheless to preclude any suspicion on her part. The SC said that there is

    no cause for inhibition. So there are instances where the mere reason just

    to preclude any doubt or suspicion on her part although there is no bias,

    just to preclude any doubt, she decided to inhibit . SC said this cannot be

    done. The judges right to inhibit must be weighed against their duty to

    decide cases without fear of repression. To affirm the judges order to

    inhibit would open the floodgates to a form of forum shopping, in which

    the litigants would be allowed to shop for a judge more sympathetic to

    their case. Such action would be antithetical to the speedy and fair

    administration of justice.

    The second paragraph does not give judges the unfettered discretion to

    decide whether to desist from hearing a case. The inhibition must be for

    just and valid causes. The mere implication of bias and partiality is not

    enough ground for them to inhibit especially if the charge is without basis.

  • 7/25/2019 Legal and Judicial Ethics Midterms Transcript 20131

    17/81

    Problem Areas in Legal Ethics Midterms, 2013)

    EH 501 Moot Court

    _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    PALE team

    Abejero, Aguilar, Bautista, Dacay, Go, Lim, Llanera, Marquez, Ocupe, Pelayo

    17

    Barnes v. Reyes

    Here, there is a specific performance plus damages case, raffled before

    Judge Padilla. Judge Padilla dismissed the case on motion of the defendant.

    The dismissal was appealed to the CA all the way to the SC, and the SC

    reversed the RTC and remanded the hearing of the civil case to the RTC. So

    the complainant in the RTC now wanted to inhibit the judge because the

    judge previously dismissed the case, so the complainant was not confident

    so much of the impartiality of the judge anymore because it is the same

    judge who previously dismissed the case. The judge inhibited. In her

    inhibitory order, the judge said that the motion for her disqualification

    contained no statement of specific act or acts that would show her

    partiality or bias in the treatment of the case, nonetheless is inhibiting to

    preclude any suspicion or doubts on her impartiality.

    SC said it was NOT proper. It was only on account of dispelling any doubt

    and perception of bias. Clearly therefore, no just and valid reason supports

    the inhibition of the judge.

    Another issue: The fact that the judge previously decided against the

    petitioner is not a proper ground for inhibition. It is not enough reason

    absent any extrinsic evidence of malice or bad faith to conclude that the

    judge was biased and partial against petitioner. So the remedy of

    erroneous interlocutory rulings in the course of a trial is not the outright

    disqualification of a judge, for there is yet to come a judge with

    omniscience to issue rulings that are always infallible. Judges will always be

    mistaken. If you use that as a reason to inhibit the judge, then it is not

    sufficient reason, it is not a valid reason. The courts will close shop if we

    disqualify judges who err, for we all err.

    Martinez v. Gironella

    The judge insisted on hearing the case even if there was a motion for

    inhibition, notwithstanding vehement objection by the other party. There

    is a murder case before this judge. There were 3 accused, but only 1

    accused (C) is being tried because the 2 others (A and B) are at large. In the

    decision of the trial judge in the criminal case, the trial judge said,

    according to evidence presented by the prosecution, accused (C) is only, if

    ever he is liable, would only be liable as an accessory. But even then, C was

    acquitted because he was not proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. And

    in the same decision, the judge said that A is really the principal, A is the

    one guilty of murder.

    Subsequently, A surrendered. Now, the case is also filed against him,

    before the same judge. A pleaded not guilty, and he moved for the

    disqualification of the judge because that same judge in his decision in the

    prior criminal case already said that A is guilty of the murder. But the judge

    said that there is no bias, or partiality because he said that what he said in

    the previous decision was what the evidence suggested. Since only C was

    tried, A was unable to confront witnesses against him. He was unable to

    present his evidence. So there is still the possibility that A would be

    acquitted once the defenses of A would be heard.

    However, SC said where respondent judge in acquitting the accused stated

    that the crime was committed by petitioner who was then at large, and

    subsequently petitioner was apprehended and tried before respondent, it

    was held that respondents previous statement rendered it impossible for

    him to be free from the suspicion that in deciding petitioners case, he will

    be biased and prejudiced. Under such circumstances, prohibition is

    available to enjoin him from deciding the case, and petitioner is entitled to

    have his case decided by another judge.

  • 7/25/2019 Legal and Judicial Ethics Midterms Transcript 20131

    18/81

    Problem Areas in Legal Ethics Midterms, 2013)

    EH 501 Moot Court

    _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    PALE team

    Abejero, Aguilar, Bautista, Dacay, Go, Lim, Llanera, Marquez, Ocupe, Pelayo

    18

    In addition to the remedies of prohibition and mandamus, an

    administrative case against the judge could also be filed.

    What are the disadvantages on the rule of inhibition?

    1. It can be used by a judge to extricate himself from a case. The

    judge could just concoct any reason and make it seem valid, and

    in so doing, he is able to extricate himself from an undesirable

    case.

    In many cases like those cases where the SC held that it is not a

    valid ground, SC said that it is not a valid ground, go ahead.

    2.

    The lawyers could also use it to choose a judge.

    To prevent these disadvantages, we have to rewrite the guidelines of the

    SC. In the case of Ty v. Banco Filipino:

    Mere suspicion of partiality is not enough. There should be hard evidence

    to prove it, as well as manifest showing of bias and partiality. Issuance of

    erroneous orders and decisions that pertain to the judges judicial

    functions may not be proper consideration to charge a judge of bias,

    except where the orders taken not singly, but collectively show that the

    judge has lost the cold neutrality of an impartial magistrate. So in effect, it

    says, it is difficult to find suspicion of partiality in just one issuance alone.

    Although there are instances where one order is enough, but in the usual

    case, the orders are the decisions or whatever writs coming from the

    court, taken collectively, must show that the judge has lost the cold

    neutrality of an impartial judge. So it is difficult to prove partiality.

    SECTION 6. A judge disqualified as stated above may, instead of

    withdrawing from the proceeding, disclose on the records that 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.

    Section 6 presupposes that there is a ground for mandatory

    disqualification.

    This refers to what we call REMITTAL OF DISQUALIFICATION. Parties are

    allowed to waive a mandatory ground for disqualification, for as long as

    these 3 requisites are complied with.

    General rule:if there is a ground for mandatory disqualification, the judge

    must disqualify

    Exception:valid REMITTAL OF DISQUALIFICATION

    Requisites:

    1. The parties and their lawyers agree independently of the judges

    participation2. They agree that the reason for inhibition is immaterial or

    unsubstantial

    3. The agreement is reduced to writing, signed by all parties and

    lawyers, entered upon the records of the case.

  • 7/25/2019 Legal and Judicial Ethics Midterms Transcript 20131

    19/81

  • 7/25/2019 Legal and Judicial Ethics Midterms Transcript 20131

    20/81

    Problem Areas in Legal Ethics Midterms, 2013)

    EH 501 Moot Court

    _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    PALE team

    Abejero, Aguilar, Bautista, Dacay, Go, Lim, Llanera, Marquez, Ocupe, Pelayo

    20

    SECTON 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 judicial

    office.

    So many restrictions on the judge, and the judge must wholeheartedly

    embrace these restrictions. Business investments for instance. They must

    accept and respect these restrictions.

    Examples of restrictions:

    1. Use of intemperate language

    2.

    Getting drunk in a party

    3. The judge confronted her former boyfriend and the latters

    female companion in the restaurant

    Found in the old code only:

    - A Judge should regulate his activities to minimize the risk of conflict

    with judicial duties.

    - Judges, because they are also human beings, they are entitled to have

    extrajudicial activities. Activities that have nothing to do with theirbeing judges, they are allowed.

    - Found in Canon 5 of the old code of judicial conduct.

    Examples:

    a. Advocational, civic, charitable activities

    b. Financial activities

    c. Fiduciary activities

    d. Practice of other profession

    e. Extrajudicial appointments

    f. Political activities

    A. ADVOCATIONAL, CIVIC AND CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES

    A judge may engage in the following activities provided that they do not

    interfere with the performance of judicial duties or detract from the

    dignity of the court:

    a. write, teach and speak on non-legal subjects;

    - Judge is also a chef. He can teach, etc. cooking on weekends.

    b.

    engage in the arts, sports, and other special recreational activities;

    c. participate in civic and charitable activities;

    d. serve as an officer, director, trustee, or non-legal advisor of a non-

    profit or non-political educational, religious, charitable, fraternal,

    or civic organization.

    Judge is a painter, and at the same time a model. Is it proper for a

    judge to be a model in nude paintings?

    -

    It may be an expression of art but again, the activitiesmust NOT CONFLICT WITH OR DEGRADE judicial

    functions.

    Judge is a gymnast, contortionist even, and he has a talent of

    swallowing fire. Can he perform in a circus?

    - NO. It has a tendency of degrading judicial functions.

  • 7/25/2019 Legal and Judicial Ethics Midterms Transcript 20131

    21/81

    Problem Areas in Legal Ethics Midterms, 2013)

    EH 501 Moot Court

    _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    PALE team

    Abejero, Aguilar, Bautista, Dacay, Go, Lim, Llanera, Marquez, Ocupe, Pelayo

    21

    B. FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES

    A judge shall refrain from financial and business dealing 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. A judge should so manage

    investments and other financial interests as to minimize the number of

    cases giving grounds for disqualifications.

    Discussed before:

    a. The judge cannot open bonding companies. If he does, there

    might be ethical objections.

    b. If employee, he must resign within 30 days.

    c. If he owns the business, he must divest his interest or

    shareholdings within 60 days.

    Subject to the provisions of the proceeding rule, a judge may hold and

    manage investments but should not serve as officer, director, manager or

    advisor, or employee of any business except as director of a family

    business of the judge.

    Allowed

    - director of a family business. That is the only thing allowed. So you

    cannot be a manager because it would require much of your time andattention. As compared to directors who would meet not so

    frequently.

    - A judge or any immediate member of the family shall not accept a gift,

    bequest, factor or loan from anyone except as may be allowed by law.

    No information acquired in a judicial capacity shall be used or disclosed by

    a judge in any financial dealing or for any other purpose not related to

    judicial activities.

    Should not use judicial information for business. Art. 1491 of the civil code

    judges are not allowed to acquire properties or rights in litigations before

    him.

    If the judge purchases the land subject of litigation before him, how

    would you characterize the contract of sale?

    - VOID. Contrary to law, contrary to art. 1491 of the civil

    code.

    Judges must also make full financial disclosure of all their financial

    activities.

    In the SALN, there is also a portion of business interests, not just of the

    judge, but also members of his own family.

    C. FIDUCIARY ACTIVITIES

    A judge should not serve as the executor, administrator, trustee, guardian,

    or other fiduciary, EXCEPTfor the estate, trusts, or person of a member of

    the immediate family, and then only if such service will not interfere with

    the proper performance of judicial duties.

    Example:

    The judges wife died. The judge is named executor of the wifes will. The

    judge is so rich, and has property holdings all over the globe. To execute

    the will, to partition the estate of the wife, would require practically 24/7

  • 7/25/2019 Legal and Judicial Ethics Midterms Transcript 20131

    22/81

    Problem Areas in Legal Ethics Midterms, 2013)

    EH 501 Moot Court

    _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    PALE team

    Abejero, Aguilar, Bautista, Dacay, Go, Lim, Llanera, Marquez, Ocupe, Pelayo

    22

    on the part of the executor for a very long time. Should the judge accept

    the designation as executor?

    NO. He may not because his duties as executor will interfere with the

    proper performance of judicial duties. He might not be able to work as a

    judge anymore as he is busy partitioning the vast estate.

    "Member of immediate family" shall be limited to the spouse and

    relatives within the second degreeof consanguinity. As a family, a judge

    shall not:

    a. serve in proceedings that might come before the court of said

    judge; or

    b.

    act as such contrary to rules 5.02 to 5.05.

    D. PRACTICE OF OTHER PROFESSION

    Absolute prohibition: A judge shall not engage in the private practice of

    law.

    Unless prohibited by the Constitution or law, a judge may engage in the

    practice of any other profession provided that such practice will not

    conflict or tend to conflict with judicial functions.

    Teaching is allowed, it is another profession, for as long as it will not

    conflict with judicial functions.

    Can the MTC judge act as a notary public?

    - YES. We call it NOTARY PUBLIC EX OFFICIO. He can engage in the

    notarization of documents connected with the exercise of official

    functions. So there is a complaint, can the judge notarize the

    complaint? Yes. He may.

    - In the far flung municipalities where there are no lawyers or notaries

    public, the MTC judge can even perform any act within the

    competence of a regular notary public. So even private documents,

    the MTC judge can notarize in far flung municipalities where there are

    no lawyers or notaries public.

    Conditions:

    1.

    All notarial fees shall be for the government, and turned over tothe municipal treasurer.

    2. Certification must be made in the notarized documents attesting

    to the lack of any lawyer, notary public, in such locality.

    E. EXTRAJUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS

    Can judges be appointed in other agencies or bodies that are non-

    judicial?

    - A judge shall not accept appointment or designation to any agency

    performing quasi-judicialor administrativefunctions.

  • 7/25/2019 Legal and Judicial Ethics Midterms Transcript 20131

    23/81

    Problem Areas in Legal Ethics Midterms, 2013)

    EH 501 Moot Court

    _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    PALE team

    Abejero, Aguilar, Bautista, Dacay, Go, Lim, Llanera, Marquez, Ocupe, Pelayo

    23

    In Re: Designation of Judge Manzano

    SC did not allow judges membership in the Ilocos Norte Provincial

    Committee on Justice which was an administrative body.

    So if it is not quasi-judicial or administrative body, it is allowed.

    F. POLITICAL ACTIVITIES

    Absolutely prohibited:

    A judge is entitled to entertain personal views on political questions. But to

    avoid suspicion of political partisanship, a judge shall not make political

    speeches, contribute to party funds, publicly endorse candidates forpolitical office or participate in other partisan political activities.

    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 suspicion or appearance of

    favoritism or partiality.

    Unethical acts:

    1. The judge who always invites members of the sanggunian who

    appear before his court, to his chambers for coffee and a quick

    chat before starting the hearing for that day.

    2. Asking for court facilities, like aircon, from lawyers. Judge is

    inviting opportunity to have familiarity with lawyers.

    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.

    Again, just review what is the definition of family.

    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.

    SECTION 5.Judges shall not allow the use of their residence by a memberof the legal profession to receive clients of the latter or of other members

    of the legal profession.

    The judges residence cannot be utilized as an office of lawyers.

    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.

  • 7/25/2019 Legal and Judicial Ethics Midterms Transcript 20131

    24/81

    Problem Areas in Legal Ethics Midterms, 2013)

    EH 501 Moot Court

    _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    PALE team

    Abejero, Aguilar, Bautista, Dacay, Go, Lim, Llanera, Marquez, Ocupe, Pelayo

    24

    They also have rights. But there could be restrictions on the way they

    exercise these rights. You do not see judges rallying in the streets for wage

    or salary increase.

    In exercising their rights, it would always have to be in conformity with the

    dignity of the judicial office. They could lobby before the SC for an

    increase, but not to rally.

    CASE

    Judge ruled in this wise: Respondent is a self-ordained, public tyrant, with

    a contaminated mind, and assuming the position of a crocodile.

    The order of the judge appears to be a pleading of the adverse party. It

    does not appear to be an order emanating from the court, which is

    supposed to be objective and impartial. In this order, the SC said that thejudge gave the appearance that he has prejudged the case and has already

    formed an opinion regarding the respondent.

    SECTION 7. Judges shall inform themselves about their personal fiduciary

    financial interests and sh all make reasonable efforts to be informed about

    the financial interests of members of their family.

    SALN, full financial disclosure

    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

    anyone else, nor shall they convey or permit others to convey the

    impression that anyone is in a special position improperly to influence in

    the performance of judicial duties.

    Examples:

    1. Judge filed his own case for estafa. He is the private offended

    party. He filed such case in his own sala and issued a warrant of

    arrest against the accused. Here, there is the obvious abuse of the

    judicial office, to advance his personal interest.

    2. A judge owns a restaurant, and in the bulletin board of his

    courtroom: WANTED: waiters, waitresses, interested applicants

    may submit their application and resume to the judge. And the

    judge also conducted interviews in his chambers. So there was

    improper use of judicial facilities for the promotion of his

    business.

    SECTION 9. Confidential information acquired by judges in their capacity

    shall not be used or disclosed by any other purpose related to their judicial

    duties.

    SECTION 10. Subject to the proper performance of judicial duties, judges

    may:

    a) Write, lecture, and participate in activities concerning the law, the legalsystem, 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

  • 7/25/2019 Legal and Judicial Ethics Midterms Transcript 20131

    25/81

    Problem Areas in Legal Ethics Midterms, 2013)

    EH 501 Moot Court

    _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    PALE team

    Abejero, Aguilar, Bautista, Dacay, Go, Lim, Llanera, Marquez, Ocupe, Pelayo

    25

    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.

    In a case, a judge advised the municipality that it can impose a certain kind

    of tax. The SC said that it was unethical for the judge to advise the

    municipality because in so doing, the judge acted as a lawyer. Judges can

    only give opinions in actual cases pending before them.

    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, 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.

    Correlate this with the provisions in the RPC regarding bribery, indirect

    bribery, also with RA 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, as well

    as RA 6713 Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards of Public Officials.

    If a judge is held liable under Section 13, he is not only susceptible to

    administrative action, but he could also be criminally prosecuted.

    SECTION 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.

    So section 14 really just gives more teeth to section 13, because without

    section 14, you could provide opportunities or avenues on the part of the

    judge to escape the prohibition in section 13 by asking the person to give

    the gift instead to the court staff. So section 14 expands the prohibition

    under section 13.

    SECTION 15. Subject to the 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.

    Take note of the phrase appropriate to the occasion on which it is

    made. So not all gifts therefore are prohibited. Only those gifts that are

    inappropriate are not allowed. So if a judge is invited speaker in a seminar,

    you may give a gift to the judge, like a plaque of appreciation, or anything

    appropriate to the occasion.

  • 7/25/2019 Legal and Judicial Ethics Midterms Transcript 20131

    26/81

    Problem Areas in Legal Ethics Midterms, 2013)

    EH 501 Moot Court

    _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    PALE team

    Abejero, Aguilar, Bautista, Dacay, Go, Lim, Llanera, Marquez, Ocupe, Pelayo

    26

    RA 6713

    Section 7. Prohibited Acts and Transactions.

    xxx

    (d) Solicitation or acceptance of gifts. - Public officials and employees shall

    not solicit or accept, directly or indirectly, any gift, gratuity, favor,

    entertainment, loan or anything of monetary value from any person in the

    course of their official duties or in connection with any operation being

    regulated by, or any transaction which may be affected by the functions of

    their office.

    CASE:

    Judge accepted the free use, for a year, of a car, and availed for free ofbattery recharging services of the shop of a litigant who has a pending case

    before him. The judge violated RA 6713.

    As to permissible gifts from foreign governments:

    (i) The acceptance and retention by a public official or employee of a gift of

    nominal value tendered and received as a souvenir or mark of courtesy;

    (ii) The acceptance by a public official or employee of a gift in the nature of

    a scholarship or fellowship grant or medical treatment; or

    (iii) The acceptance by a public official or employee of travel grants or

    expenses for travel taking place entirely outside the Philippine (such as

    allowances, transportation, food, and lodging) of more than nominal value

    if such acceptance is appropriate or consistent with the interests of the

    Philippines, and permitted by the head of office, branch or agency to which

    he belongs.

    _____________________________________________________________

    CANON 5: EQUALITY

    Ensuring equality of treatment to all before the court is essential to the due

    performance of judicial office.

    SECTION 1. Judges shall be aware of, and understand, diversity in society

    and differences arising from various sources, including but not limited torace, color, sex, religion, national origin, caste, disability, age, marital

    status, sexual orientation, social and economic status and like causes.

    General rule:Treat everybody and everything equally

    Exception:If there is a valid basis to differentiate

    Section 1 requires judges to know the valid causes to differentiate.

    Judges must know that there could be factors to give different treatments,

    and it would be injustice to treat everyone equally if such factors exist in a

    case. So when you say equality, there is really no prohibition against

    differentiation. What is prohibited is differentiation on improper or

    irrelevant grounds.

  • 7/25/2019 Legal and Judicial Ethics Midterms Transcript 20131

    27/81

    Problem Areas in Legal Ethics Midterms, 2013)

    EH 501 Moot Court

    _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    PALE team

    Abejero, Aguilar, Bautista, Dacay, Go, Lim, Llanera, Marquez, Ocupe, Pelayo

    27

    For example, should sex matter when it comes to the right to vote or the

    right to go to school, or the right to work?

    No. So there should be no differentiation.

    We have Juvenile Justice Welfare Act, Senior Citizens Act, Magna Carta of

    Disabled Persons, Solo Parents Act, et cetera. There is a different

    treatment here.

    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.

    There was a judge who, when interviewed, said, I am pro-accused; I am

    tender to the rights of the accused. This is improper. You showed that you

    have a preference already, irrespective of the facts of each case.

    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.

    So treat everyone fairly and equally if there is no basis to differentiate. If

    there is basis, there should be a different treatment. Like a minor witness,

    he may receive different treatment. He may be allowed to testify in a way

    different from the usual adult witnesses. Some minors are even named

    AAA or BBB to protect their identity.

    The judges may also treat new lawyers differently. Judges should be

    patient, attentive, and courteous to lawyers, especially the young and

    inexperienced. So judges are required to be more courteous and more

    considerate to new lawyers.

    SECTION 4.Judges shall not knowingly permit court staff or other 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.

    So in a case a judge reprimanded the lawyer for making sexist and racist

    comments in his pleading.

    __________________________________________________________

  • 7/25/2019 Legal and Judicial Ethics Midterms Transcript 20131

    28/81

    Problem Areas in Legal Ethics Midterms, 2013)

    EH 501 Moot Court

    _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    PALE team

    Abejero, Aguilar, Bautista, Dacay, Go, Lim, Llanera, Marquez, Ocupe, Pelayo

    28

    CANON 6: COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE

    Competence and diligence are prerequisite to the due performance of

    judicial office.

    SECTION 1. The judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all other

    activities.

    If you remember judges are allowed to have extrajudicial activities, but

    section 1 reminds judges that the judicial duties should take precedence

    over all activities. So if the judge is also a culinary lecturer, his job as a

    judge must have priority over his 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 courts operations.

    We might say that the job of the judge is to hear and decide cases, but that

    is not the only job of the judge. Another job of the judge is administration.

    In other words, aside from hearing and deciding cases, the judge is also the

    manager of his courtroom; the judge is the boss of his courtroom. As such,

    he must know how to manage his personnel. He must know how to

    manage case files, how to do efficient record keeping, etc. The judge

    cannot just lay the blame on court employees, because it is the duty of the

    judge to manage his courtroom. So judges have been disciplined for

    missing case records, missing case exhibits.

    If you are a judge and you have a court personnel who is rude to the

    people, it is the duty of the judge to supervise, to correct the inappropriate

    behavior of that personnel. So aside from adjudication, the judge is also an

    administrator of his courtroom.

    You see a courtroom that is very dirty, very messy, it could reflect badly on

    the administrative capability of the judge. Or the personnel are always

    late, or absent, it could reflect on the judges administrative capability.

    SECTION 3. Judges shall take reasonable steps to maintain and enlarge

    their knowledge, skills and personal qualities necessary for the properperformance of judicial duties, taking advantage for this purpose of the

    training and other facilities which should be made available, under judicial

    control to judges

    Are judges required to attend MCLE?

    - NO. They are not required, it is mandatory only for lawyers. But

    they are still welcome to attend.

    - They have a counterpart to MCLE in the judiciary; they have a

    continuing legal education conducted by the Philippine Judicial

    Academy. So PJA conducts continuing legal education on judges

    and justices and that is mandatory. The reason is to ensure that

    judges keep themselves updated with law and jurisprudence.

  • 7/25/2019 Legal and Judicial Ethics Midterms Transcript 20131

    29/81

    Problem Areas in Legal Ethics Midterms, 2013)

    EH 501 Moot Court

    _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    PALE team

    Abejero, Aguilar, Bautista, Dacay, Go, Lim, Llanera, Marquez, Ocupe, Pelayo

    29

    In decided cases, it is the judges duty to follow the doctrine and ruling of

    the SC. Any deviation from this rule may have detrimental consequences

    beyond the immediate controversy.

    What if the judge feels that the SC decision is wrong, or against his

    conscience?

    - If the judge feels that a doctrine enunciated by the SC is against

    his way of reasoning or conscience, he may say his personal

    opinion on the matter and should decide the case in accordance

    the law or doctrine and not his personal belief. So he is free to

    have a side comment if he does not agree with it, but he still has

    to apply it.

    - Judges should not allow their personal beliefs and convictions to

    prevail over settled jurisprudence.

    Example:

    Case of a judge who renders decisions pursuant to dwarves. He also has

    healing sessions in his courtroom. Judge dismissed from the judiciary.

    SC said spiritual, paranormal beliefs have no room in the decision making

    of the judge. In the case, the judge admitted that he renders decisions that

    way.

    They should not also be ignorant of the law. Ignorance of the law is the

    main spring of injustice as well as corruption. Disrespect and lack of

    confidence will be detrimental if judges are ignorant. You cross reference

    this with pertinent RPC provisions. Knowingly rendering unjust judgment,

    judgment rendered through negligence, unjust interlocutory order, and

    malicious delay in the administration of justice.

    DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL IMMUNITY

    A judge is not made liable for mere error. To be liable, such error must

    constitute gross ignorance of the law, bad faith, dishonesty, hatred or

    s