Extrajudicial activitiesof judges /justicesProblem Areas in Legal EthicsArellano University School of Law Arellano Law Foundation2014-2015

*

The previous Canons of Judicial Ethics and the Code of Judicial Conduct is a supplement to the new CodeCanons of Judicial Ethics and the Code of Judicial Conduct, promulgated on 5 September 1989, shall take effect on 20 October 1989 This New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary shall take effect on the first day of June 2004This Code, which shall hereafter be referred to as the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, supersedes the Canons of Judicial Ethics and the Code of Judicial Conduct heretofore applied in the Philippines to the extent that the provisions or concepts therein are embodied in this Code: Provided, however, that in case of deficiency or absence of specific provisions in this New Code, the Canons of Judicial Ethics and the Code of Judicial Conduct shall be applicable in a suppletory character.*

CANON 4PROPRIETYNew Code of Judicial Conduct [2004]

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

SECTION 1. Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their activities.

SEC. 2. As a subject of constant public scrutiny, judges must accept personal restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly. In particular, judges shall conduct themselves in a way that is consistent with the dignity of the judicial office.

*

SEC. 3. Judges shall, in their personal relations with individual members of the legal profession who practice regularly in their court, avoid situations which might reasonably give rise to the suspicion or appearance of favoritism or partiality.

SEC. 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.

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

*

SEC. 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.

SEC. 7. Judges shall inform themselves about their personal fiduciary financial interests and shall make reasonable efforts to be informed about the financial interests of members of their family.

SEC. 8. Judges shall not use or lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance their private interests, or those of a member of their family or of anyone else, nor shall they convey or permit others to convey the impression that anyone is in a special position improperly to influence them in the performance of judicial duties.

*

SEC. 9. Confidential information acquired by judges in their judicial capacity shall not be used or disclosed by for any other purpose related to their judicial duties.

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

(a) Write, lecture, teach and participate in activities concerning the law, the legal system, the administration of justice or related matters;

(b) Appear at a public hearing before an official body concerned with matters relating to the law, the legal system, the administration of justice or related matters;

(c) Engage in other activities if such activities do not detract from the dignity of the judicial office or otherwise interfere with the performance of judicial duties.

*

SEC. 12. Judges may form or join associations of judges or participate in other organizations representing the interests of judges.

SEC. 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.

SEC. 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.*

SEC. 15. Subject to law and to any legal requirements of public disclosure, judges may receive a token gift, award or benefit as appropriate to the occasion on which it is made provided that such gift, award 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.

*

Private practice of law prohibited Rule 138 RRC Sec. 35. Certain attorneys not to practice. - No judge or other official or employee of the superior courts or of the Office of the Solicitor General, shall engage in private practice as a member of the bar or give professional advice to clients. Canon 5, Rule 5.07 of the Code of Judicial Conduct states that: 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.

*

Why a judge cannot practice lawThese provisions are based on public policy for there is no question that the rights, duties, privileges and functions of the office of an attorney-at-law are inherently incompatible with the high official functions, duties, powers, discretion and privileges of a judge. It also aims to ensure that judges give their full time and attention to their judicial duties, prevent them from extending special favors to their own private interests and assure the public of their impartiality in the performance of their functions. These objectives are dictated by a sense of moral decency and desire to promote the public interest. - Ziga v. Judge Arejola, A.M. No. MTJ-99-1203. June 10, 2003

*

Drafting complainants affidavit is practice of lawRespondent acted as a lawyer for complainant and her father-in-law when he drafted complainants affidavit which became the basis of a complaint for estafa filed against Heidi Navarra. By acting as counsel for complainant and the latters father-in-law in a case filed in his court, respondent compromised his neutrality and independence. How could he then be expected to decide with objectivity and fairness the cases in which he has acted as a lawyer for the plaintiff or complainant? Respondents misconduct in this case is further compounded by the fact that he rendered the legal services in question using government facilities during office hours. - Biboso v. Judge Villanueva, A.M. No. MTJ-01-1356. April 16, 2001*

Instances when a judge canserving as executor, administrator, trustee, guardian or other fiduciary As a general rule, a judge is prohibited from serving as executor, administrator, trustee, guardian or other fiduciary. The only exception is when the estate or trust belongs to, or the ward is a member of his immediate family, and only if his service as executor, administrator, trustee, guardian or fiduciary will not interfere with the proper performance of his judicial duties.

The Code has defined who may be considered as members of his immediate family and they are the spouse and relatives within the second degree of consanguinity. Carual v. Brusola A.M. No. RTJ-99-1500. October 20, 1999*

Judges family Includes a judges: 1. spouse, 2. son, 3. daughter, 4. son-in-law, 5. daughter-in-law, and 6. any other relative by consanguinity or affinity within the sixth civil degree, or 7. person who is a companion or employee of the judge and who lives in the judges household.*

Rendering legal opinion proscribedTo escape our disciplining wrath, respondent judge argues that the "resolution" he issued was a mere expression of his legal opinion and not a judgment or order "which adjudicates and settles rights and obligations of the parties." He said that the petition for declaratory relief, earlier quoted, is not a pleading, but a mere letter-request for a legal opinion. Hence, complainant Gozun was not entitled to notice and hearing.Besides, even assuming arguendo that the resolution was a mere legal opinion, still respondent must know that rendering of "legal opinions" is not the function of a judge. The function of the court is limited to adjudication of actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable or enforceable. Unlike lawyers, judges cannot render legal advice. Judges are expressly prohibited from engaging in the private practice of law or from giving professional advice to clients. Gozun v. Judge Liangco A.M. No. MTJ-97-1136. August 30, 2000*

A judge who violates the judicial code of conduct also violates the lawyers oathWe ruled that because membership in the bar is an integral qualification for membership in the bench, the moral fitness of a judge also reflects the latters moral fitness as a lawyer. A judge who disobeys the basic rules of judicial conduct also violates the lawyers oath. - OCA v. Atty. Liangco, A. C. No. 5355 [2011]*

As attorney-in-fact in actual litigationsExcept for the initiatory pleading, respondent Judge signed the pleadings relative to the civil case and participated in some of the hearings held relative thereto.The proscription against the private practice of law, or just giving professional advice to clients, by Judges is based on public policy. The prohibition applies equally well to the appointment of and acceptance by judges to the post of attorney-in-fact in actual litigations, a fact which is also, by and large, incompatible with the high office, functions, prestige and privileges of a judge. It is of no moment, albeit worse, that the case where he accepts such designation as attorney-in-fact is one that pends before his own court. - Sps. Gragera v. Judge Francisco, A. M. No. RTJ-02-1670. June 26, 2003*

A.M. NO. 13-05-05-SC RE: REVISION OFRESTRICTIONS ON TEACHING HOURS OFJUSTICES, JUDGES AND PERSONNEL OF THE JUDICIARYEN BANC RESOLUTION DATED 01 APRIL 2014Teaching shall be allowed for not more than ten (10) hours a week. On regular working days (Monday through Friday), teaching shall not be conducted earlier than 5:30 p.m.

2. An application for permission to teach if filed by a judge shall be accompanied by a certification of the Clerk of Court concerned regarding the condition of the court docket showing: (a) the number of pending cases; and (b) the number of cases disposed of within a three-month period prior to the start of the semester in his or her respective sala.*

An application for permission to teach filed by ajudge or justice shall require approval as follows:If filed by a judge from a lower level court, it shall be subject to the approval of the executive judge concerned;

b. If filed by an executive judge, it shall be subject to the approval of the Court Administrator;

c. If filed by an Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, or the Court of Tax Appeals, it shall be subject to the approval of the presiding justice concerned;

d. If filed by the Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, or the Court of Tax Appeals, it shall be subject to the approval of the Chief Justice.*

An application for permission to teach filed bycourt personnel shall require approval as followsa. If filed by court personnel from a lower level court, it shall be subject to the approval of the executive judge concerned;b. If filed by court personnel from the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, or the Court of Tax Appeals, it shall be subject to the approval of the presiding justice or the executive justice concerned, as the case may be;c. If filed by Supreme Court personnel belonging to a chamber of an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, it shall be subject to the approval of the Associate Justice concerned, who will notify the Chief Justice and the Office of Administrative Services, Supreme Court, of this approval;d. If filed by other Supreme Court personnel, it shall be subject to the approval of the Chief Justice.*

Disposition of applications5. The approving authority may deny the application or allow less than ten (10) hours of teaching a week, depending on the applicants performance record.

6. At the end of every year, an approving authority shall submit to the Chief Justice a report on the applications submitted for the year and the respective status of, or action taken on, each application.*

Failure to secure permit to teachTo justify his failure to obtain a permit from the Supreme Court, he said that the University of the East did not require him to submit one.

Respondent judges failure to accomplish the Request for Permission to Teach form prescribed in Circular No. 50-97, dated July 18, 1997 is inexcusable. It is a clear violation of the judiciary rules and regulations, indicating respondent judges disregard of the authority of the Supreme Court. For no matter how insignificant or inconsequential the circular may seem to respondent judge, he should have complied with it. - Jabon v. Judge Sibanah E. Usman, A.M. No. RTJ-02-1713 [2005]

*

Proper for judges to attend meetings of members of the barIt is not necessary to the proper performance of judicial duty that judges should live in retirement or seclusion; it is desirable that, so far as the reasonable attention to the completion of their work will permit, they continue to mingle in social intercourse, and that they should not discontinue their interests in or appearance at meetings of members at the bar. A judge should, however, in pending or prospective litigation before him be scrupulously careful to avoid such action as may reasonably tend to waken the suspicion that his social or business relations or friendships constitute an element in determining his judicial course.- Abundo v. Judge Manio, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-98-1416. August 6, 1999*

Judge eating lunch with counselFor respondent judge to eat lunch with counsel is not wrong per se. The Canons, however, provides that as much as possible he should be scrupulously careful to avoid any suspicion that his social or business or friendly relationship is an element in determining his judicial course.

Knowing that Atty. Verano, Jr., is counsel of the petitioner in an annulment case pending before him, the respondent judge should have thought twice about joining counsel for lunch, especially in the courtroom at that. Pertierra v. Judge Lerma, A.M. No. RTJ-03-1799. September 12, 2003*

Political activities of judgesAllowed : A judge is entitled to entertain personal views on political questions. Prohibited: But to avoid suspicion of political partisanship: 1. a judge shall not make political speeches, 2. a judge shall not contribute to party funds 3. a judge shall not publicly endorse candidates for political office or participate in other partisan political activities. - Rule 5.10, Canon 5, of the Code of Judicial Conduct

*

Engaging in partisan political activityimproper under Civil Service LawPres. Decree No. 807 (Civil Service Law) clearly states: Section 45. No officer or employee in the Civil Service including members of the Armed Forces, shall engage directly or indirectly in any partisan political activity or take part in any election except to vote nor shall be use his official authority or influence to coerce the political activity of any other person or body. Nothing herein provided shall be understood to prevent any officer or employee from expressing his views on current political problems or issues, or from mentioning the names of candidates for public office whom he supports: ...

*

Engaging in political activityRespondent started circulating handbills/letters addressed to electoral constituents in the second district of Bulacan indicating his intention to run for a congressional seat. For having held himself out as a congressional candidate while still a member of the Bench, Respondent took advantage of his position to boost his candidacy, demeaned the stature of his office, and must be pronounced guilty of gross misconduct. - Vistan v. Judge Nicolas A.M. No. MTJ-87-79 [1991]*

Filing of a certificate of candidacyWhen he was appointed as a judge, he took an oath to uphold the law, yet in filing a certificate of candidacy as a party-list representative in the May 1998 elections without giving up his judicial post, Judge Limbona violated not only the law, but the constitutional mandate that no officer or employee in the civil service shall engage directly or indirectly, in any electioneering or partisan political campaign.

The filing of a certificate of candidacy is a partisan political activity as the candidate thereby offers himself to the electorate for an elective post. - Limbona v. Judge Limbona, A.M. No. SCC-98-4 March 22, 2011*

Limit of judges journalistic writingComplainant alleged that respondent used his newspaper column to ventilate his biases or personal anger at people or institutions.

Complainant believes that respondent judge should not engage in active, sensational, and free-for-all journalistic writing because such act degrades the judicial system and compromises his impartiality as an administrator of justice. *

ContRespondents writing of active and vicious editorials compromises his duties as judge in the impartial administration of justice, for his views printed on newspapers reflect on his office as well as on the public officers that he challenges.

Not only does he act as its contributor or columnist, he is also its publisher, editor and legal adviser. Although the Code of Judicial Conduct allows a judge to engage in certain lawful activities, they should not interfere with the performance of judicial duties nor detract from the dignity of the court. - Galang v. Judge Santos G.R. No. MTJ-99-1197 [1999]

*

Judge cannot be appointed to executive position in any enterpriseCircular No. 6 dated April 10, 1987 strictly enjoins all Judges, Clerks of Court and Sheriffs not to accept the position of director or any other position in any electric cooperative or other enterprises, or to resign immediately from such position if they are already holding the same so as not to prejudice the expeditious and proper administration of justice. In violation of this circular, Judge Estrada, who was appointed to the judiciary on May 17, 1994, did not resign from the Board of Directors of the Rural Bank of Labrador until May 31, 1997. - Re: Inhibition of Judge Bienvenido R. Estrada A.M. No. 98-1-32-RTC July 29, 1998*

Judge should not accept any position in any business enterpriseRULE 5.01 - 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: xxx(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.

RULE 5.03 - 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. - Canons of Judicial Ethics and the Code of Judicial Conduct*

Not good for judges to engage in business Indeed, it is not good for judges to engage in business except only to the extent allowed by Rule 5.03 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which provides:

Subject to the provisions of the preceding rule, a judge may hold and manage investments but should not serve as an officer, director, manager, advisor, or employee of any business except as director of a family business of the judge. - Berin and Alorro v. Judge Barte A.M. No. MTJ-02-1443. July 31, 2002

*

Limits of financial and business dealings Refrain from financial and business dealings that tend to:

reflect adversely on the courts impartiality, interfere with the proper performance of judicial activities, or increase involvement with lawyers or persons likely to come before the court. - Berin and Alorro v. Judge Barte A.M. No. MTJ-02-1443. July 31, 2002 citing Rule 5.02 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics and the Code of Judicial Conduct

*

Act of writing a letter to opposing counsel and defending a right amounts to private practice of law We also find merit in complainant's contention that respondent's act of writing to Atty. Cargullo and defending the right of Andres Bo to possess the lot in dispute amounts to private practice of law.

The tenor of the letter shows that respondent, as representative of Andres Bo, was defending the latter's rights over the disputed property. Respondent's act of representing and defending the interest of a private individual in the disputed property constitutes private practice of law. It has been ruled that "the practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court or participation in court proceedings but also includes preparation of pleadings or papers in anticipation of a litigation, giving advice to clients or persons needing the same, etc. - Carual v. Brusola A.M. No. RTJ-99-1500. October 20, 1999

*

As agent in the sale of the subject property

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. 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 suspicion as to his fairness but also 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. - Rosauro v. Judge Kallos A.M. No. RTJ-03-1796 February 10, 2006

*

Financial and business dealingsJudge can engage in financial and business dealings provide:

1. such will not reflect adversely on the courts impartiality.

2. will not interfere with the proper performance of judicial activities.

3. will not 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 disqualification. - Catbagan v. Judge Barte, A.M. No. MTJ-02-1452. April 06, 2005

*

Sheer presence - as a member of the Judiciary - would be sufficient suggestion of persuasion and influenceAs a member of the bench, the respondent judge should realize that his presence, opinion and participation in any proceeding could slant the evaluation and resolution of the case in favor of (the) party he identifies himself with. A judge need not utter any word for his sheer presence - as a member of the Judiciary - would be sufficient suggestion of persuasion and influence. In this case, the respondent judge's presence and participation in the proceedings were to the advantage of his relatives, the heirs of Dr. Cosme T. Valdez, Sr. That his efforts failed to influence the DARAB, for the motion filed by the Valdez heirs in DARAB Case No. 282-T-93 for contempt was dismissed, has no relevance. - Garcia, et. al. v. Judge Valdez, A.M. No. MTJ-98-1156 [1998]*

Giving moral support to a family member by attending the hearing is improperJudge Dojillo admitted that he was present during the mentioned hearings but explained that he did not sit beside his brothers lawyer but in the area reserved for the public; and that the main reason why he was there was to observe how election protests are conducted as he has never conducted one. His other reason was to give moral support to his brother. - Vidal v. Judge Dojillo, Jr. A.M. No. MTJ-05-1591 [2005]*

Objection from complainant or counsel is immaterialAlthough concern for family members is deeply ingrained in the Filipino culture, respondent, being a judge, should bear in mind that he is also called upon to serve the higher interest of preserving the integrity of the entire judiciary.

The fact that neither complainant nor his counsel objected to the presence of respondent during the hearing is immaterial. - Vidal v. Judge Dojillo, Jr. A.M. No. MTJ-05-1591 [2005]*

Use of letterhead by a judgeIn other words, the respondent Judges transgression was not per se in the use of the letterhead, but in not being very careful and discerning in considering the circumstances surrounding the use of his letterhead and his title. - Ladignon v. Judge Garong, A.M. No. MTJ-08-1712 [2008]

Hence, respondent judges use of the court heading outside of judicial business warrants disciplinary action for violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct particularly Section 1, Canon 4.

*

Use of ordinary bond papers and placing his official station as return addressThe Judges claim that he used an ordinary bond papers and placed thereon his official station as return address is not totally without merit. For, indeed, this is not an unusual practice and it would be hypocritical to deny its occurrence at all levels of the Judiciary. For example, some members of the Judiciary may use a social card with the letterhead of their office to indicate their address as well as their station within the judicial hierarchy; some also use notepads bearing their names, designation and station. - Ladignon v. Judge Garong, A.M. No. MTJ-08-1712 [2008]

*

Use of courts stationeryThe Court also finds respondent Judge liable for violating Rule 2.03 of the Code in using official stationery for his correspondence with complainant and the latters counsel regarding Lot No. 1470. A courts stationery, with its official letterhead, should only be used for official correspondence. By using his salas stationery other than for official purposes, respondent Judge evidently used the prestige of his office to benefit Guererro (and himself) in violation of Rule 2.0322 of the Code. - Rosauro v. Judge Kallos A.M. No. RTJ-03-1796 February 10, 2006

Respondent Judge should know that a courts letterhead should be used only for official correspondence. - Oktubre v. Judge Velasco A.M. No. MTJ 02-1444. July 22, 2004

*

Judge required tenants to pay at MTCRespondent Judge aggravates his liability when, in his letters to the tenants, he further required them to pay their rent at the MTC Maasin, although he was then staying at the Paler building. By these calculated steps, respondent Judge in the words of Rule 2.03, clearly intended to use the prestige of his judicial office to advance the interest of his maternal co-heirs. Oktubre v. Judge Velasco A.M. No. MTJ 02-1444. July 22, 2004*

Thank you for your attention!!*