EXTRA-JUDICIAL

ACTIVITIES OF JUDGES

Submitted by: Group 19

Pedrealba, Cara Krystle B.
Uy, Ron

NEW CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT

Canon 2: INTEGRITY
Integrity is essential not only to the proper discharge of the judicial office but also to the
personal demeanor of judges.
Section 1. Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above reproach, but that it is
perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable observer.
Section 2. The behavior and conduct of judges must reaffirm the people's faith in the
integrity of the judiciary. Justice must not only merely be done but must also be seen and
done.
In Oktubre v. Velasco, this Court held that respondent judges act of sending several
letters bearing his salas letterhead, in connection with an apparent dispute in the
administration of the estates of his relatives, clearly showed the judges intent to use the
prestige of his judicial office, and hence, violative of Rule 2.03 of the Code of Judicial
Conduct.The Court considered respondent Judge Velascos excuse for using his salas
letterhead, i.e., that he wanted to protect the interest of his maternal co-heirs in the
subject properties, as flimsy, and emphasized that respondent judge had no business using
his salas letterhead for private matters, as the same should be used only for official
correspondence (Belen vs. Belen 2010).
Code of Judicial Conduct
CANON 2 A judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.
Rule 2.03 A judge shall not allow family, social, or other relationships 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 special position to influence the
judge.

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.
Section 1. Judges shall perform their judicial duties without favor, bias or prejudice.
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
impartiality of the judge and the judiciary.
Section 3. Judges shall, so far as is reasonable, so conduct themselves as to minimize
occasions on which it will be necessary for them to be disqualified from hearing or
deciding cases.

CANON 4: Propriety
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.
-

In Obaana, Jr. v. Ricafort, the court held that: Any impression of impropriety, misdeed
or negligence in the performance of official functions must be avoided. This Court shall
not 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 the faith of the people in the Judiciary.

Illustrative case: OCA vs. JUDGE FLORENTINO V. FLORO

FACTS: Judge Florentino V. Floro faced a total of 13 charges calling for his disbarment
and removal from his office as a judge. Some of the charges against him were the act of
circulating calling cards containing self-laudatory statements regarding qualifications in
violation of Canon 2, Rule 2.02 Canon of Judicial Conduct; for violation of Canon 1,
Rule 1.01 Code of Judicial Conduct when he openly criticized the Rule of Court and the
Philippine Justice System; for the use of highly improper and intemperate language
during court proceeding; for violation of Circular No. 13 dated 1 July 1987.
Judge Floro also claimed that he has certain psychic powers such as the power to see the
future, the power of bilocation, the power to type letters while he is in a trance and the
power to see and consult with his little friends or the duwendes.
ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Floro is unfit to serve as a judge.
HELD: Judge Floro must be relieved of his position as judge of RTC Malabon Branch
due to a medically disabling condition of the mind that renders him unfit to discharge the
functions of his office.

Section 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.
-

Judges must keep their distance from lawyers and avoid involvement with their
respective practice of law even if such lawyers have no pending cases before them.
Judges and lawyers must maintain a discreet relationship. As such, vulgar display of
friendship must be avoided.

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

A judge should avoid financial improprieties. He must be always conscious of his and his
familys financial dealings, when practicable to avoid being caught inadvertently in
financial entanglements. Where a potential financial conflict would occur, the judge
becomes duty bound to inhibit from the case. A judge should be conscious about going

into a debtor-creditor relationship with others, as well as mindful of his financial

investments.

Section 8. Judges shall not use or lend the prestige or the judicial office to advance their
private interest, or those of a member of their family or of anyone else, nor 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.
-

A judicial office carries a certain amount of prestige and influence in society that prestige
and influence should be used to promote and enhance respect for the law and the
administration of justice, and not to further the judges and his familys personal interests.

Section 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.
Section 11. Judges shall not practice law whilst the holder of judicial office.
-

Section 35 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court expressly prohibits sitting judges from
engaging in the private practice of law or giving professional advice to clients. Section 11
Canon 4 (Propriety), of the New Code of Judicial Conduct and Rule 5.07 of the Code of
Judicial Conduct reiterate the prohibition from engaging in the private practice of law or
giving professional advice to clients. The prohibition is based on sound reasons of public
policy, considering that the rights, duties, privileges and functions of the office of an
attorney are inherently incompatible with the high official functions, duties, powers,
discretion and privileges of a sitting judge. It also aims to ensure that judges give their
full time and attention to their judicial duties, prevent them from extending 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.

The basis for prohibition is public policy. As explained in Carual vs. Judge Brusola:
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
interest 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.

Illustrative Case: Tabao vs Judge Asis, A.M. No. RTJ-95-1330. January 30, 1996

FACTS: This is a complaint filed by the sisters Azucena and Jesusa Tabao against Judge
Enrique Asis charging him with gross irregularity in the performance of his duties and
abuse of authority and conduct unbecoming of a judge, among others. While acting as
MTCC Judge of Tacloban City, Br.1, respondent notarized a Special Power of Attorney
purportedly executed in behalf of their aunt Marquita M. Cinco-Jocson, to sell a parcel of
land while the latter was confined in the hospital which was done, according to
respondent judge, as a gesture of Christian charity and brotherly love for people in
need considering that the proceeds were used for the payment of the medical expenses.
However, an examination of the SPA negates the professed gesture of Christian charity
and brotherly love for people in need since it was already notarized one month and 20
days before.
ISSUE: Whether or not the actuations of respondent judge is violative of the Code of
Judicial Conduct.
HELD: Yes. Canon 5, Rule 5.07 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides that no judge
or other official or employee of the superior courts shall engage in private practice as a
member of the bar or give professional advice to clients. It is based on sound reasons of
public policy, for there is no question that the rights, duties, privileges and functions of
the office of an attorney-at-law are so inherently incompatible with the high official
functions, duties, powers, discretions and privileges of a judge of the Regional Trial
Court.
This rule makes it obligatory upon the judicial officers concerned to give their full time
and attention to their judicial duties, prevent them from extending special favors for their
own private interests and assure the public of impartiality in the performance of their
functions. These objectives are dictated by a sense of moral decency and the desire to
promote public interest.

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.
-

It has been consistently held by the Supreme Court that The practice of law is a privilege,
and only those adjudged qualified are permitted to do so. When a judges conduct falls
short of the exacting standards demanded by the legal profession, such that his
malfeasance in office merits the ultimate penalty, that of expulsion from profession.

Illustrative Case: NBI vs. Judge Reyes AM No. 97-1120, February 21, 2000
Facts: On the evening of November 12, 1996, barangay officials of Barangay Majuben,
Mabini, Batangas, arrested Magday, Dalangin, Cordero and Evangelista during a drug
session. The four (4) were detained a t the local police station and were charged of
violating R.A. No. 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. The
corresponding information, docketed as Criminal Case No. 1817, was filed before the
Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Mabini-Tingloy, Batangas, presided over by respondent
Judge Ramon B. Reyes.
On November 20, 1996, Nenita Dalangin, Marina Cordero and Nelia Evangelista, the
mothers of the last three (3) accused, approached respondent to plead for the release of
their sons. For the sum of P240,000.00, respondent allegedly promised to dismiss the
case against all the accused. Since the mothers did not have sufficient means, the amount
was eventually lowered to P15,000.00, and the pay-off was scheduled on November 28,

1996. However, respondent failed to report for work on the aforesaid date, so the
exchange was reset a week later to December 5, 1996.
Three (3) days before the pay-off, on December 2, 1996, Dalangin, Cordero and
Evangelista reported the alleged extortion to the National Bureau of Investigation at its
Regional Office in Batangas City. After the mothers executed separate sworn
statements, the NBI planned an entrapment.
ISSUE: Whether Judge Reyes should be dismissed from service and be disbarred from
the practice of law.
Held: Supreme Court held that Judge Reyes acted in violation of the Code of Judicial
Conduct Code 2.01 A judge should avoid impropriety and appearance of impropriety in
all activities.
The Investigating Justice likewise recommends that respondent be disbarred. Section 27,
Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that a member of the bar may be
disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney on the following grounds: (1) deceit;
(2) malpractice or other gross misconduct in office; (3) grossly immoral conduct; (4)
conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; (5) violation of the lawyers oath; (6)
wilful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court; and (7) wilfully appearing as
an attorney for a party without authority.

Section 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 be reasonably perceived as intended to
influence the judge in the performance of official judicial duties or otherwise give rise to
an appearance of partiality.