I.

1. Qualities of a judge
a. Under the constitution

Section 7 Article VIII

(3) A Member of the Judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and
independence.

b. Under the Code of Judicial Conduct

Judges should uphold the dignity of judicial office at all times, avoiding both impropriety and the
appearance of impropriety in their professional and personal lives. They should at all times conduct
themselves in a manner that garners the highest level of public confidence in their independence,
fairness, impartiality, integrity, and competence.

c. Accdg to Justice Panganiban

II.

1. May a judge be held liable on the basis of res ipsa loquitur?

A judge may be disciplined by the Supreme Court based solely on the basis of the complaint filed by the
complainant and the answer of the respondent judge, under the principle of res ipsa loquitor. The
Supreme Court has held that when the facts alleged in the complaint are admitted or are already shown
on the record, and no credible explanation that would negate the strong inference of evil intent is
forthcoming, no further hearing to establish such facts to support a judgment as to culpability of the
respondent is necessary.

2. May a judge consider his personal opinion aside from the law?

Rule 3.02, Canon 3 - In every case, a judge shall endeavour diligently to ascertain the facts and the
applicable law unswayed by partisan interests, public opinion or fear of criticism.

A judge is expected to decide cases only on the basis of the applicable law on the matter, not on any
other extraneous factors, such as public opinion, personal convictions and partisan interests

3. May a judge be punished for not knowing the law in rendering a decision?

When a judge displays an utter unfamiliarity with the law and the rules, he erodes the confidence of the
public in the courts. A judge owes the public and the court the duty to be proficient in the law and is
expected to keep abreast of laws and the prevailing jurisprudence. Ignorance of the law by a judge can
easily be the mainspring of injustice.

E.g. It is already settled that when a judge grants bail to a person charged with a capital offense, or an
offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment without conducting the required bail
hearing, he is considered guilty of ignorance or incompetence the gravity of which cannot be excused by
a claim of good faith or excusable negligence.

Discuss and give only one example of the three questions.

III.

1. State the objective of the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education.

MCLE ensures that members of the IBP are kept abreast with law and jurisprudence throughout their
career, maintain the ethics of the profession and enhance the standards of the practice of law.

2. What is the significance of the Lawyer’s Oath.

By taking the lawyer’s oath, a lawyer becomes the guardian of truth and the rule of law and an
indispensable instrument in the fair and impartial administration of justice. Good moral character
includes, at least, common honesty. Deception and other fraudulent acts are not merely unacceptable
practices that are disgraceful and dishonorable; they reveal a basic moral flaw.

IV.

1. The rendition of free legal services is a lawyer’s: (2014 Bar)

A: Moral duty is above social obligation and legal mandate. The lawyer voluntarily imposes upon himself
higher duties and more noble obligations enshrined in the Lawyer's Oath which goes beyond
commitment to social obligation and legal mandates.

2. A person names and appointed to defend an absentee is an:

A: Attorney ad hoc

3. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) may intervene in a case involving a matter of public
law or professional concern as: (2014 Bar)

A: Amicus par excellence

V.

1. Legal and political luminaries. Identify their citizenship and contribution to their profession.

2. Explain the following legal maxims:

a. Testes Ponderantur, Non Numerantur – “testimonies are to be weighed and not numbered.”
In case of conflict of evidence, truth is to be sought by weighing the credibility of the
respective witnesses, and not by the mere numerical preponderance on one side or the
 other. This rule provides that more regard is to be paid to the character of the evidence
adduced in support of a case than to the number of the witnesses who gave the evidence.
b. Audi alteram partem – “hear the other side.” It is the principle that no person should be
judged without a fair hearing in which each party is given the opportunity to respond to the
evidence against them.
c. Qui Non Negat Fatetur - “he who does not deny, admits.”

3. Core Values of you University.

Di ko alam 