Canon 2 INTERGRITY

Integrity is essential not only to the proper discharge of

judicial office but also to the personal demeanor of judges

Judge Rebecca R. Mariano

WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Rebecca R. Mariano of the
Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 136, is found guilty of
the serious charge of gross misconduct due to violations of the
Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct and provisions of Supreme
Court Administrative Circular No. 4-2004, as well as of making
untruthful statements in the monthly reports; and ordered to pay
a FINE in the amount of P40,000.00 directly to this Court, with a
stern warning that a commission of the same or a similar offense
will be dealt with more severely.
In the instant case, respondent was guilty of intentional
misrepresentation of her records resulting in a breach of trust and
confidence, amounting to the serious charge of gross misconduct
due to violations of the Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct
A judges failure to observe time prescription for the rendition of
judgments in derogation of an otherwise speedy administration of
justice constitutes a ground for administrative sanction.
Thus, as it has so often stated on a number of occasions, all that
a judge has to do is to request additional time to decide cases,
and such requests, if meritorious, are almost invariably granted
by the Court

Judge Felix Caraos

A judge, as an advocate of justice and visible representation of the law, must not only apply the
law but must imbibe it in his everyday living. Having accepted the exalted position of a judge,
both his personal and public life have been set apart from the average citizen. A judges

assumption of office is viewed with utmost respect and reverence compatible with his position
as dispenser of justice. From him the people draw their will and awareness to obey the law. He
must be the first to abide by the law and weave an example for others to follow.[6] The peoples
confidence in the judicial system, however, is founded not only on the competence and diligence
of the members of the bench, but also on their integrity and moral uprightness.[7]The public will
have faith in the administration of justice only if they believe that the occupants of the bench
cannot be accused of arbitrariness in the exercise of their powers both in and out of the
court. Accordingly, he must at all times avoid even the slightest infraction of the law.
The observance of the Canon of Judicial Ethics does not end at the close of office hours nor is
limited within the performance of his official duties. The Canon of Judicial Ethics commands that
a judges behavior, official or otherwise, should be free from the appearance of impropriety in all
activities[11] and should be beyond reproach. For a judges official life can not simply be detached
from his personal life

Mandala v. judge mariano

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."15 As such, judges must ensure
that their "conduct, both in and out of the court, maintains and enhances the confidence of the
public, the legal profession and litigants in the impartiality of the judge and of the judiciary." 16 In the
same vein, the Code of Judicial Conduct behooves all judges to avoid impropriety and the
appearance of impropriety in all their activities, as such is essential to the performance of all the
activities of a judge in order to maintain the trust and respect of the people in the judiciary.17
In the case at bar, respondent Judge Asdalas actions as above discussed put into question the
impartiality, independence, and integrity of the process by which the questioned amended orders
were reached. Her actions miserably fell short in the discharge of her duty as an officer of the court
and as a living embodiment of law and justice.

Canon 3 IMPARTIALITY
Impartiality is essential to the proper discharge of judicial
office. It applies not only to the decision itself but also to
the process by which the decision is made.

Concerned citizens of legaspi vs. judge carretas

Virtue of gravitas

A judge should possess the virtue of gravitas.

He should be learned in the law,
dignified in demeanor,
refined in speech and virtuous in character. Besides having the
requisite learning in the law,
he must exhibit that hallmark judicial temperament of utmost
sobriety and self-restraint.[20]
In this connection, he should be considerate, courteous and civil
to all persons who come to his court.
A judge who is inconsiderate, discourteous or uncivil to lawyers, litigants or
witnesses who appear in his sala commits an impropriety and fails in his duty to
reaffirm the peoples faith in the judiciary. He also violates Section 6, Canon 6 of
the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary which provides:
SEC. 6. Judges shall maintain order and decorum in all
proceedings before the court and be patient, dignified and courteous
in relation to litigants, witnesses, lawyers and others with whom the
judge deals in an official capacity. Judges shall require similar
conduct of legal representatives, court staff and others subject to their
influence, direction or control.[22](emphasis supplied)

Judge Contreras
To merit disciplinary sanction, the error or mistake committed by a judge should be patent, gross,
malicious, deliberate, or done in bad faith and absent a clear showing that the judge has acted
errantly; the issue becomes judicial in character and would not properly warrant the imposition of
administrative punishment (Godinez vs. Alano, 303 SCRA 259).
In Lumbos v. Baliguat,14 we held that as a matter of policy, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity
are not subject to disciplinary action. He cannot be subjected to liability - civil, criminal, or
administrative - for any of his official acts, no matter how erroneous, as long as he acts in good
faith.15 To hold, otherwise, would be to render judicial office untenable, for no one called upon to try
the facts or interpret the law in the process of administering justice can be infallible in his judgment

Thus, not every error or mistake that a judge commits in the performance of his duties renders him
liable, unless he is shown to have acted in bad faith or with deliberate intent to do an
injustice.20 Good faith and absence of malice, corrupt motives or improper considerations are
sufficient defenses in which a judge x x x can find refuge.

Canon 4 PROPRIETY
Propriety and the appearance of propriety are essential to the performance of all
activities of a judge.

Ligaya santos v. judge cortez

To constitute gross ignorance of the law, it is not enough that the subject
decision, order or actuation of the judge in the performance of his official duties is
contrary to existing law and jurisprudence but, most importantly, he must be
moved by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty, or corruption.[20] Good faith and absence of
malice, corrupt motives or improper considerations, are sufficient defenses in
which a judge charged with ignorance of the law can find refuge.[21]
However, good faith in situations of fallible discretion inhered only within
the parameters of tolerable judgment and does not apply where the issues are so
simple and the applicable legal principles evident and basic as to be beyond
possible margins of error
In this case, respondent's act of cutting short the hearing after the
prosecution presented its evidence, without affording the defense
to adduce evidence in rebuttal together with his outright denial of
complainants request to offer proof, is a clear disregard of the
right of the accused to disprove that the evidence of guilt is
strong. It is of no moment that respondent
required complainantsto submit their memorandum. What is
significant is that complainants were deprived of their
constitutional right to present evidence during the hearing which

the respondent may intelligently appreciate and evaluate in the

light of the circumstances then obtaining.
When the law is elementary, not to be aware of it constitutes
gross ignorance thereof. Judges are expected to have more than
just a modicum of acquaintance with the statutes and procedural
rules.
Moreover, for serious misconduct to exist, the judicial act
complained of should be corrupt or inspired by an intention to
violate the law or a persistent disregard of well-known legal rules.
[23]
The records are bereft of any evidence to this effect to warrant
disciplinary action against respondent.

Anonymous complaint against judge Gedorio

First, we clear the objection of respondent judge that the letter-complaint
should not be given due course because it is only anonymous. Section 1, Rule 140
of the Revised Rules of Court provides that the disciplinary proceedings against
judges and justices may be instituted under either of three ways:
1. by the Supreme Court motu proprio;
2. upon a verified complaint; or
3. upon an anonymous complaint, supported by public records of
indubitable integrity.
The use of intemperate language is included in the proscription
provided by Section 1, Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial
Conduct,[5] thus: Judges shall avoid impropriety and the
appearance of impropriety in all the activities of a judge.
The Court has repeatedly reminded members of the bench to
conduct themselves irreproachably, not only while in the
discharge of official duties but also in their personal behavior

every day.[6] A judges official life cannot be separated from his

personal existence
Irresponsible or improper conduct on their part erodes public
confidence in the judiciary. Thus, it is their duty to avoid any
impression of impropriety in order to protect the image and
integrity of the judiciary.

NBI vs. judge villaneuva

respondent opened himself to the charges of white slave trade and violation of RA
7610. Such acts are unacceptable, because no position exacts a greater demand on
moral righteousness and uprightness than a seat in the judiciary. High ethical
principles and a sense of propriety should be maintained, without which the faith of
the people in the judiciary so indispensable in an orderly society cannot be
preserved.[10] In sum, his actions show conduct unbecoming his office.
. For serious misconduct to warrant dismissal from the service, there must be
reliable evidence showing that the judicial acts complained of were corrupt or
inspired by an intention to violate the law. It must (1) be serious, important,
weighty, momentary, and not trifling; (2) imply wrongful intention and not mere
error of judgment; and (3) have a direct relation to and be connected with the
performance of his official duties
In this case, the acts complained of are not connected with the performance of
respondents official duties; thus, they cannot be considered serious or gross
misconduct. However, such acts are violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct,
specifically Canon 2 which states that [a] judge should avoid impropriety and the
appearance of impropriety in all activities.

Canon 5 Equality
Ensuring equality of treatment to all before the court is
essential to the due performance of the judicial office.

Visbal vs. judge buban

In her Report, Deputy Court Administrator Zenaida N. Elepao recommended that respondent be
held administratively liable for gross inefficiency for his delay in resolving a motion.
In his comment, 3 respondent judge admitted he incurred delay in resolving the "Motion to Correct
and Re-mark Exhibits of the Prosecution." He attributed such delay to the frequent resetting of the
hearing of the cases. He also alleged that his clerk of court "failed or forgot" to submit the records of
the pertinent case to him and to call his attention to the unresolved motion attached to the
voluminous records.
This Court has consistently held that failure to decide cases and other matters within the
reglementary period constitutes gross inefficiency and warrants the imposition of administrative
sanction against the erring magistrate 4Delay in resolving motions and incidents pending before a
judge within the reglementary period of ninety (90) days fixed by the Constitution and the law is not
excusable and constitutes gross inefficiency. 5 Further, such delay constitutes a violation of Rule
3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which mandates that a judge should dispose of the
court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods.
Furthermore, Rule 3.09, Canon 3 of the same Code requires every judge to organize and supervise
the court personnel to ensure the prompt and efficient dispatch of business. Respondent fell short of
this mandate. He also failed to comply with this Court's Circular No. 13 dated July 31, 1987 which
directs all judges to closely supervise court personnel.

OCA v. Judge trocino

On the Delay in Rendering Judgment

Section 5, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine
Judiciary provides that judges shall perform all judicial duties, including the
delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly, and with reasonable
promptness. Section 15(1) of the 1987 Constitution states that all cases or matters
must be decided or resolved by the lower courts within three months from date of
submission.
In this case, Judge Trocino failed to decide 71 cases submitted for decision during
the first audit, 33 of which remained undecided during the second audit. On the
other hand, Judge Catilo failed to decide 50 cases submitted for decision during the
first audit, which was later reduced to 43 cases during the second audit. On the
inherited cases, Judge Trocino failed to decide 8 of the 10 cases as of the second
audit. Despite directives from the OCA, Judge Trocino and Judge Catilo failed to

decide the cases. Judge Trocino also failed to resolve pending motions and dormant
cases.
The Court reminds judges, clerks of court, and all other court
employees that they share the same duty and obligation to
dispense justice promptly. They should strive to work together
and mutually assist each other to achieve this goal. [21] But judges
have the primary responsibility of maintaining the professional
competence of their staff.[22] Judges should organize and supervise
their court personnel to ensure the prompt and efficient dispatch
of business, and require at all times the observance of high
standards of public service and fidelity

Complaint against justice ascuncion

The Constitution mandates lower collegiate courts to decide or
resolve cases or matters within twelve months from date of submission.
[26]
Section 3, Rule 52 of the Revised Rules of Court requires motions for
reconsideration to be resolved within ninety days. Section 5, Canon 6 of the
New Code of Judicial Conduct provides that (J)udges shall perform all
judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly
and with reasonable promptness.
Indeed, the essence of the judicial function, as expressed in Section
1, Rule 135 of the Revised Rules of Court is that justice shall be impartially
administered without unnecessary delay.
In Arap v. Judge Amir Mustafa,[27] We held that:
The Court has constantly impressed upon judges the need to
decide cases promptly and expeditiously, for it cannot be gainsaid
that justice delayed is justice denied. Delay in the disposition of
cases undermines the peoples faith and confidence in the
judiciary. Hence, judges are enjoined to decide cases with

dispatch. Their failure to do so constitutes gross inefficiency and

warrants the imposition of administrative sanction against them.

Guerrero v. Villamor[36] is instructive:

For liability to attach for ignorance of the law, the assailed order,
decision or actuation of the judge in the performance of official
duties must not only be found erroneous but, most importantly, it
must also be established that he was moved by bad faith,
dishonesty, hatred, or some other like motive.[37] x x x
Conversely, a charge for either ignorance of the law or rendering
an unjust judgment will not prosper against a judge acting in good
faith. Absent the element of bad faith, an erroneous judgment
cannot be the basis of a charge for any said offenses, mere error
of judgment not being a ground for disciplinary proceedings

Non-disclosure Before the Judicial and Bar Council of the Administrative

Case Filed Against Judge Jaime V. Quitain, in His Capacity as the then
Asst. Regional Director of the National Police Commission, Regional
Office XI, Davao City.

In Office of the Court Administrator v. Estacion, Jr.,[23] this Court stressed:

x x x The important consideration is that he had a duty to
inform the appointing authority and this Court of the pending
criminal charges against him to enable them to determine on the
basis of his record, eligibility for the position he was seeking. He did
not discharge that duty. His record did not contain the important
information in question because he deliberately withheld and thus
effectively hid it. His lack of candor is as obvious as his reason for the
suppression of such a vital fact, which he knew would have been
taken into account against him if it had been disclosed.

Thus, we find respondent guilty of dishonesty. Dishonesty means disposition

to lie, cheat or defraud; unworthiness; lack of integrity

We have often stressed that the conduct required of court

personnel, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk of court,
must always be beyond reproach and circumscribed with the
heavy burden of responsibility as to let them be free from any
suspicion that may taint the Judiciary. We condemn, and will never
countenance any conduct, act or omission on the part of all those
involved in the administration of justice, which would violate the
norm of public accountability and diminish or even just tend to
diminish the faith of the people in the Judiciary.
Verily, the resignation of Judge Quitain which was accepted by the Court
without prejudice does not render moot and academic the instant administrative
case. The jurisdiction that the Court had at the time of the filing of the
administrative complaint is not lost by the mere fact that the respondent judge by
his resignation and its consequent acceptance without prejudice by this Court, has
ceased to be in office during the pendency of this case. The Court retains its
authority to pronounce the respondent official innocent or guilty of the charges
against him. A contrary rule would be fraught with injustice and pregnant with
dreadful and dangerous implications.[30] Indeed, if innocent, the respondent official
merits vindication of his name and integrity as he leaves the government which he
has served well and faithfully; if guilty, he deserves to receive the corresponding
censure and a penalty proper and imposable under the situation.[31]

WHEREFORE, in view of our finding that JUDGE JAIME V. QUITAIN is

guilty of grave misconduct which would have warranted his dismissal from the
service had he not resigned during the pendency of this case. Haha nag resign
nalang =))

Rosario Adriano vs. Judge Francisco Villanueva

Even after judges have retired from the service, they may still be held administratively
accountable for lapses and offenses committed during their incumbency. Although they may no
longer be dismissed or suspended, they may still be meted out fines that can be deducted from
their retirement benefits.

Courts exist to dispense justice. This sacred task is imbued with public interest. Verily,
no government position is more demanding of moral righteousness and uprightness than a seat
in the judiciary.[10] Judges as models of law and justice are mandated to avoid not only impropriety, but also
the appearance of impropriety,[11] because their conduct affects the peoples faith and confidence in the entire
judicial system

Undue Delay in
Deciding a Case
A case is deemed submitted for decision upon the admission of the
evidence of the parties, unless the court directs them to argue orally or to
submit written memoranda. Once a case is submitted for decision, a judge
has three months to decide it.
[16]

Edano vs. judge asdala

As early as June 6, 2003, OCA Circular No. 70-2003 has

directed judges as follows:
In view of the increasing number of reports reaching the
Office of the Court Administrator that judges have been
meeting with party litigants inside their chambers, judges
are hereby cautioned to avoid in-chambers sessions
without the other party and his counsel present,
and to observe prudence at all times in their
conduct to the end that they only act impartially
and with propriety but are also perceived to be
impartial and proper

Emmanuel velasco vs. judge angeles

An act unrelated to a judges discharge of judicial functions

may give rise to administrative liability even when such act
constitutes a violation of penal law. [56] When the issue is
administrative liability, the quantum of proof required is only
substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.[57] Evidence to support a conviction in a criminal case
is not necessary, and the dismissal of the criminal case against
the respondent in an administrative case is not a ground for the
dismissal of the administrative case. [58] Conversely, conviction in
the criminal case will not automatically warrant a finding of guilt
in the administrative case. We emphasize the well-settled rule
that criminal and civil cases are altogether different from

administrative matters, and each must be disposed of according

to the facts and the law applicable to it. In other words, the
disposition in the first two will not necessarily govern the third,
and vice versa.