file:judicial2a.htm

II. ETHICAL RULES OF
JUDICIAL CONDUCT

1. Necessity and Sources of
Judicial Ethics

The quality and character of judges are matters
of public interest. That is why the process for their selection and appointment
has been insulated as far as possible from politics. The Constitution now
provides for a Judicial and Bar Council whose main function is to recommend
appointees to the judiciary. The President’s choice in the appointment of
judges is limited to the list of at least three (3) nominees prepared by the
Judicial and Bar Council for every vacancy.4 Confirmation by the Commission on
Appointments is no longer required.

The maintenance of the quality of the judiciary
is also the reason for ethical rules developed throughout the years to guide
and govern the conduct of judges. Although such rules have largely been
codified in the Code of Judicial Conduct, the Constitution, statutes, the Rules
of Court, Canons of Judicial Ethics, and decisions of the Supreme Court are
still rich sources of refinements and precedents.

Thus, aside from the aforementioned provision of
Section 7, Article VIII of the Constitution mandating that a member of the
judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity and
independence, there is also Section 1, Article XI of the same Constitution
which declares that:

Public office is a public trust. Public
officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve
them with utmost responsibility, loyalty and efficiency, act with patriotism
and justice, and lead modest lives.

In line with this principle, Congress has enacted
Republic Act No. 6713,5 otherwise known as the "Code of
Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officers and Employees," which is
also applicable to judges.

2. Ethical Rules
Relating to Competence

          A
judge should be competent. Rule 3.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct requires
that the judge should maintain “professional competence.”

2.1 Proficiency in the Law

Competence means, first of all, that the judge
should be proficient in the law. Time and again, the Supreme Court has pointed
out that a judge should have more than a cursory acquaintance with the law and
rules of procedure.6
He owes it to the public and to the legal profession to know the law he is
supposed to apply to a given controversy.7

This requires a continuous study of law and
jurisprudence on his part.8

We,
likewise, reiterate the pressing responsibility of judges to keep abreast with
the law and changes therein, as well as with latest decisions of the Supreme
Court. Ignorance of the law, which everyone is bound to know, excuses no one –
not even judges. Ignorantia juris quod quisque scire tenetur non
excusat. Moreover, the role of justices and judges in the administration of
justice requires a continuous study of the law and jurisprudence lest public
confidence in the judiciary would be eroded by the incompetent and
irresponsible conduct of judges. A judge in accordance with sworn duties should
be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it.9

Even if a judge is already nearing the compulsory
retirement age, he is still called upon to study.

Even in
the remaining years of his stay in the judiciary, he should keep abreast with
the changes in the law and with the latest decision and precedents. Although a
judge is nearing retirement, he should not relax in his study of the law and
court decisions. Service in the judiciary means a continuous study and research
on the law from beginning to end.10

2.2 Faithfulness to
the Law

A judge should not only know the law, but he must
be faithful to it. He should apply the law in spite of his personal opinion
about its merit. The Supreme Court has aptly explained, thus:

 Obedience to the rule of
law forms the bedrock of our system of justice. If judges, under the guise of
religious or political beliefs were allowed to roam unrestricted beyond
boundaries within which they are required by law to exercise the duties of
their office, then law becomes meaningless. A government of laws, not of men,
excludes the exercise of broad discretionary powers by those acting under its
authority. Under this system, judges are guided by the Rule of Law, and ought
to protect and enforce it without fear or favor, resist encroachments by
governments, political parties, or even the interference of their own personal
beliefs.11

Earlier, the Supreme Court explained that:

 "xxx For the
discretion which the respondent judge speaks of in his order is not an
unfettered one, though this may sound paradoxical. The judge, writes Cardozo,
even when he is free, is still not wholly free. He is not a knight-errant
roaming at will in pursuit of his own ideal of beauty or of goodness. He is to
draw his inspiration from consecrated principles. He is not to yield to
spasmodic sentiment, to vague and unregulated benevolence. He is to exercise a
discretion informed by tradition, methodized by analogy, disciplined by system,
and subordinated by the primordial necessity of order in social life. Wide
enough in all conscience is the field to discretion that remain.’ And we might
add that the kind of justice which courts are called upon to dispense is
justice according to the precepts of law.12

However, the Supreme Court has also decided that
where a provision of law is silent or ambiguous, judges ought to invoke a
solution ‘responsive to the vehement urge of conscience.’13

Moreover, it is the duty of a judge to apply the
law as interpreted by the Supreme Court14 and not in accordance with his personal
views.15 If he
does not agree with the Supreme Court’s doctrine, he may express his view on
the matter; nevertheless, he should follow and apply the said doctrine.

2.3 Ascertainment of Facts

A judge should not only be faithful to the law,
but he should also be proficient in the ascertainment of facts.16 He
should firmly enforce the Rules of Court in the conduct of the trial. He should
basically observe due process of law which requires that he should hear both
sides and give them the opportunity to present their evidence.17 His
findings of fact must be based on the evidence presented and admitted, and not
on his personal knowledge. Moreover, ‘[w]hile a judge may, to promote justice,
prevent waste of time or clear up some obscurity, properly intervene in the
presentation of evidence during the trial, it should always be borne in mind
that undue interference may prevent the proper presentation of the cause or the
ascertainment of the truth.’18

However, a judge may validly render a decision
although he did not, or has only partly heard, the testimony of the witnesses,
such as when he has taken over a case from a previous judge.19

2.4 Order and Decorum

Competence also means that the judge should
maintain order and decorum in the court.20 Proceedings in court must be conducted formally
and solemnly, and the judge himself should set the example and the tone.

The judge must always keep in mind that he is the
visible representative of the law. From him, the people draw their will and
awareness to obey the law.21

Towards this end, a judge should be punctual in
holding hearings and strictly observe the requirement of at least eight hours
of service a day, of which five hours should be devoted to trial.22

A judge should be dressed appropriately and use
proper language. It has been held that it is improper for a judge to hear a
case in sleeveless polo shirt and slippers23 or attired only in ‘polo jacket.’24

A judge should not allow himself to be moved by
pride, passion or pettiness in the performance of his duties.25 A judge
should be patient, attentive, and courteous to lawyers, especially the
inexperienced, to litigants, witnesses, and others appearing before the court.26 An
over-speaking judge is no well-tuned cymbal.27 ‘A judge, mindful of his high calling and
his mission, should refrain from the use of inflammatory and excessive
rhetoric.’28

The judge should not tolerate unnecessary taking
of pictures of the court proceedings. Live radio and television coverage of
court proceedings has been prohibited by the Supreme Court to protect the
parties’ right to due process, prevent distraction of the participants to the
proceedings, and to avoid miscarriage of justice.29

2.5
Speedy Disposition of Cases

Competence also means that the judge should
dispose of the court’s business promptly and decide cases within the required
periods.30
It is not enough that judges pen their decisions; it is also important to
promulgate and make them known at the earliest possible time and within the
mandated period.31
Sec. 15 (1), Art. VIII of the Constitution provides that "all cases or
matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must be decided or
resolved within twenty four months from date of submission for the Supreme
Court, and, unless reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower
collegiate courts, and three months for all other lower courts." The
Constitution even goes to the extent of clarifying that a case or matter shall
be deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading,
brief or memorandum required by the Rules of Court or by the court itself.32

The duty to decide cases promptly is due to the
time-honored precept that justice delayed is justice denied.33
Relative to this, a judge should make a periodic physical inventory of the
cases assigned to him to enable him to keep track of their status.34

2.6
Contents of a Decision

The Constitution requires the judge to state
clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which he bases his judgment.35 A
competent judge should find no difficulty with this requirement. This will show
that he has not disregarded any evidence and argument of counsel. This will
also "show his full understanding of the case, avoid suspicion of
arbitrary conclusion, promote confidence in his intellectual integrity and
contribute useful precedent to the growth of law."36

2.7
Performance of Administrative Duties

Finally, competence means that the judge should
be a good manager. He ‘should diligently discharge administrative
responsibilities, maintain professional competence in court management, and
facilitate the performance of the administrative functions of other judges and
court personnel.’37 He should ‘organise and supervise the
court personnel to ensure prompt and efficient dispatch of service and require
at all times the observance of high standards of public service and fidelity.’38 He
should ‘take or initiate appropriate disciplinary measures against lawyers or
court personnel for unprofessional conduct’39 and ‘appoint commissioners, receivers,
trustees, guardians, administrators and others strictly on the basis of merit
and qualifications.’40

A judge must keep a watchful eye on the conduct
of his subordinates in order to deter negligence or abuse on the part of the
latter.41 He
should see to it that his orders are properly and promptly enforced and that
case records are properly stored.42 A judge cannot take refuge behind the
inefficiency or mismanagement of court personnel. Proper and efficient court
management is as much his responsibility.43

He may penalise lawyers and court personnel for
contempt in the appropriate cases to enforce discipline on them. But it should
be remembered that ‘judges should exercise their contempt powers judiciously
and sparingly, with utmost restraint, and with the end in view of utilizing
their contempt powers for correction and preservation, not for retaliation or
vindication.’44
Also, it has been held that a predisposition to use physical violence and
intemperate language against a judge’s subordinates reveals a marked lack of
judicial temperament and self-restraint.45