Judicial Ethics Canons 5 & 6

qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqw ertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwert yuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyui Legal Ethics opasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiop New Code of Judicial Conduct Canons 5 & 6 asdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopas March 7, 2017 dfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdf Submitted To Prosecutor Ethyl B. Eleccion-Vidal ghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfgh jklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjkl Submitted By Mary Rose D. Magsayo Karen Liz D. Obero zxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzx Myrna A. Obus cvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcv bnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbn mqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqw ertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwert yuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyui opasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiop asdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfgh 1

NEW CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT CANON 5 - EQUALITY.............................................................................................. 1 ENSURING EQUALITY OF TREATMENT TO ALL BEFORE THE COURTS IS ESSENTIAL TO THE DUE PERFORMANCE OF THE JUDICIAL OFFICE...................................................1 Section 1 - Judges shall be aware of and understand diversity in society and differences arising from various sources, including, but not limited to, race, color, sex, religion, national origin, caste, disability, age, marital status, sexual orientation, social and economic status, and other like causes.1 Section 2 - Judges shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct, manifest bias or prejudice towards any person or group on irrelevant grounds......................................1 Section 3 - Judges shall carry out judicial duties with appropriate consideration for all persons, such as the parties, witnesses, lawyers, court staff and judicial colleagues, without differentiation on any irrelevant ground, immaterial to the proper performance of such duties...................................2 Section 4 - Judges shall not knowingly permit court staff or others subject to his or her influence, direction or control to differentiate between persons concerned, in a matter before the judge, on any irrelevant ground...................................................................................................... 2 Section 5 - Judges shall require lawyers in proceedings before the court to refrain from manifesting, by words or conduct, bias or prejudice based on irrelevant grounds, except such as are legally relevant to an issue in proceedings and may be the subject of legitimate advocacy.....................3 CANON 6 - COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE................................................................4 Section 1 - The judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all activities.............................4 Section 2 - Judges shall devote their professional activity to judicial duties, which include not only the performance of judicial functions and responsibilities in court and the making of decisions, but also other tasks relevant to the judicial office or the court’s operations....................................5 Section 3 - Judges shall take reasonable steps to maintain and enhance their knowledge, skills and personal qualities necessary for the proper performance of judicial duties, taking advantage for this purpose the training and other facilities which should be made available, under judicial control, to judges................................................................................................................... 6 Section 4 - Judges shall keep themselves informed about relevant developments of international law, including international conventions and other instruments establishing human rights norms.. .6 Section 5 - Judges shall perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness.............................................................6 Section 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.......................................7 Section 7 - Judges shall not engage in conduct incompatible with the diligent discharge of judicial duties.................................................................................................................... 8 CASE DIGESTS......................................................................................................... 9 Canon 5.................................................................................................................... 9 Section 2 – Re: Inhibition of Judge Eddie R. Rojas (292 SCRA 306)......................................9 Section 5 – People vs Boras, G.R. 127495, December 22, 2000..........................................10 2

Canon 6.................................................................................................................. 11 Section 1 – Re: Leaves of Absence Without Approval of Judge Eric T. Calderon, A.M. No. 98-8105-MTC........................................................................................... January 26, 1999 11 Section 2 – Longboan vs Polig A.M. No. 704-RTJ

June 14, 1990.....................................12

Section 3 – Rio vs Judge Cawaling, A.M. No. MTJ-02-1391, June 7, 2004............................14 Section 5 – Dela Cruz vs Pascua, A.M. No. RTJ-99-1461 - June 26, 2001.............................15 Section 6 – Mane vs Belen, A.M. No. RTJ-08-2119, 30 June 2008......................................16 Section 7 –Briones vs CA, G.R. No. 204444, January 14, 2015..........................................17

CANON 5 - EQUALITY ENSURING EQUALITY OF TREATMENT TO ALL BEFORE THE COURTS IS ESSENTIAL TO THE DUE PERFORMANCE OF THE JUDICIAL OFFICE. This Canon covers the following topics which are being discussed in the corresponding sections:     

Understand the Diversity in Society Not to Manifest Bias or Prejudice Not to Differentiate Not to Influence Staff Attitude to Parties Appearing in Court

This is a new Canon not found in the previous two Philippine Codes of Judicial Court. It expands the measures to promote equality required by international human rights agreements. Those agreements advocate a universal application of law and non-discrimination between the sexes. - PhilJa

Section 1 - Judges shall be aware of and understand diversity in society and differences arising from various sources, including, but not limited to, race, color, sex, religion, national origin, caste, disability, age, marital status, sexual orientation, social and economic status, and other like causes. An exchange of ideas and people worldwide results to the diversity in society. Judges are expected to be well aware of this situation in order for them to render substantial justice. This is also important for them to maintain the confidence of the public in the judicial system. The Judges should also ensure that they avoid the infiltration of preconceptions into their decisions at all times. In order for them to prevent the act of discrimination, they should be mindful of the various international instruments and treaties signed or voted for by the Philippines. This is because these international instruments and treaties affirm the equality of all human beings. They at the same time establish a norm of non-discrimination without distinction as far as race, sex language or religion are concerned. Thus, in the course of their function, Judges must see to it that all rights of the people involved in the litigations are being respected regardless of their language, sex orientation, religion and race.

3

Section 2 - Judges shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct, manifest bias or prejudice towards any person or group on irrelevant grounds. In the performance of their judicial duties, Judges should avoid private remarks, hasty conclusions or distasteful jokes that may give erroneous impressions of prejudice and lead the public to believe that they have prejudgment of the cases before them. As judges, they have the rights and authority to express their opinions regarding the facts of the cases before them. However, in giving out their comments, they should be very careful not to cross the thin line between being passionate about their task and being irresponsible in discussing the merits of the cases. Therefore, as Judges they need to make sure that in sharing their thoughts, they maintain their being objective, polite and compassionate. The society looks at them as magistrates of law thus they should accord themselves in such a manner that their conduct can withstand the highest level of public scrutiny at all times. The Rules of Court prevent judges from trying cases where they acted as counsel without the consent of the parties. This prevents not only a conflict of interest but also the appearance of impropriety on the part of the judge. A judge should take no part in a proceeding where his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. He should administer justice impartially & without delay. The prohibition does not only cover hearings but all judicial acts (e.g. orders, resolutions) some of which Judge Rojas did make. - In Re: Inhibition of Judge Eddie R. Rojas (292 SCRA 306)

Section 3 - Judges shall carry out judicial duties with appropriate consideration for all persons, such as the parties, witnesses, lawyers, court staff and judicial colleagues, without differentiation on any irrelevant ground, immaterial to the proper performance of such duties. Judges should be conscientious, studious, courteous, patient and punctual in the course of their judicial functions as arbiters of the law. These are virtues that they need to observe at all times to ensure that the time of the litigants, witnesses and counsel are given value and recognition. It can be said that Judges hold the highest position in their respective courts. However, they should set a good example for his staff and colleagues in the law profession by acting with decorum toward jurors, parties of the litigation, court staff and spectators alike. It is quite important that Judges act accordingly at all times to maintain harmonious working relationship with everyone involved in the administration of justice. In addition, they must behave in such a way that will avoid poor public impression on the judiciary. They should not utter derogatory remarks against their fellow Judges for this can impair the image of the judiciary. Judges, being dispensers of justice should not act in a way that would cast suspicion in order to preserve faith in the administration of justice. They should so behave to avoid poor public impression on the judiciary. Here, the judges act of fighting each other by uttering derogatory remarks against each other is a conduct unbecoming of a judge for which they should be disciplined as their fight has impaired the image of the judiciary. (Navarro v. Tormis, A.M. No. MTJ-00-1337, Apr. 27, 2004) A judge should avoid unconsciously falling into the attitude of mind that the litigants are made for the courts, instead of the courts for the litigants. Here, the judge should be held liable for misconduct 4

when he threatened to punish complainant for contempt of court if he would refuse to withdraw his appearance, as counsel for the accused, when the latter insisted on waiving the presentation of the evidence for the defense. (Atty. Quinto v. Judge Vios, A.M. No. MTJ-04-1551, May 21, 2004)

Section 4 - Judges shall not knowingly permit court staff or others subject to his or her influence, direction or control to differentiate between persons concerned, in a matter before the judge, on any irrelevant ground. In this section the discussion focuses on the duty of the Judges not to influence their staff. This is because as arbiters of law themselves, Judges must ensure that their court personnel do not discriminate by doing special favors or disclosing confidential information to any unauthorized person. They also have a duty to ensure that they do not tolerate misconduct by their clerks, sheriffs and other assistants who are sometimes vulnerable to accept favors or special treatments due to their close relationship with the Judges. All personnel involved in the dispensation of justice should conduct themselves with a high degree of responsibility. (Mataga v. Rosete, A.M. No. MTJ-03-1488, Oct. 13, 2004)

Section 5 - Judges shall require lawyers in proceedings before the court to refrain from manifesting, by words or conduct, bias or prejudice based on irrelevant grounds, except such as are legally relevant to an issue in proceedings and may be the subject of legitimate advocacy. Judges should conduct proceedings in court with dignity and in a manner that reflects the importance and seriousness of proceedings. They should maintain order and proper decorum in the court. (Rule 3.03, Canon 3, 1989 Code of Judicial Conduct) A judge should enforce the Code of Professional Responsibility’s call to lawyers to “observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial to judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others” 1 and for him not to “abuse, browbeat or harass a witness nor needlessly inconvenience him.” 2 A lawyer is also tasked to “abstain from all offensive personality and to advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which he is charged.” 3 Rights and Obligations of Witnesses [Rule 132, Section 3 of the Revised Rules of Court]: (a) To be protected from irrelevant, improper or insulting questions and from a harsh or insulting demeanor; 1 Canon 11, Code of Professional Responsibility 2 Rule 12.07, Canon 12, Code of Professional Responsibility 3 Rule 138, Sec. 20(f), Rules of Court 5

(b) Not to be detained longer than the interests of justice require (c) Not to be examined except as to matters pertinent to the issues before the court; (d) Not to give an answer which will tend to subject him to a penalty for an offense unless otherwise provided by law; (e) Not to give an answer which will tend to degrade the witness’ reputation, but a witness must answer the fact of any previous final conviction for a criminal offense. A witness must answer questions but judges should not allow lawyers to abuse witnesses and subject them to unfair treatment. In the case of People vs Boras, 4 the latter was convicted of statutory rape. The Supreme Court noted that the questions posed to the young victim were “unnecessary, uncalled for and excessive”: By subjecting her into explaining whether she was forced or intimidated is excessive. For proof of force and intimidation is unnecessary in statutory rape. Considering that there is a medical report substantiating the allegations made by the victim, the manner of examination of the victim must be tempered. Especially in this case, since the child is only six years old who remains uncorrupted. In rape, mere touching of males organ to the pudendum of females organ is enough to consummate the crime. Whether the organ was fully erect or not, to a child of six years of age, slight penetration consummates rape. Thus, asking questions likeQ: Did you have any opportunity at that time when you were raped to hold the penis of Nolito Boras? A: No, Sir. Q: At the time, when you were raped by Nolito Boras, was his penis hard or soft? A: Hard, sir and Q: Did you see your Uncle Cerilo Guirela after the accused Nolito Boras stop pushing and pulling his penis to your vagina or while he was still in the process of pushing and pulling his penis to your vagina? A: Nolito Boras was not yet finished pushing and pulling his penis to my vagina. are unnecessary, uncalled for and excessive queries.

CANON 6 - COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE COMPETENCE AND DILIGENCE ARE PRE-REQUISITES TO THE DUE PERFORMANCE OF JUDICIAL OFFICE. A Member of the Judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence. [Sec. 7(3), Article VIII, 1987 Constitution] Judicial conduct requires that a judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence. 5 A judge is a man of learning and he is expected to know the law that should apply to an

4 People vs Boras, G.R. No. 127495, December 22, 2000 6

issue. Learning is a continuing process and a judge can only maintain professional competence by diligently keeping himself updated with legal and jurisprudential developments.

Section 1 - The judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all activities. It is the judge’s responsibility to perform his judicial duties where his is not disqualified. He may only inhibit himself based on good, sound or ethical grounds, or for just and valid reasons. He shall not inhibit to avoid sitting on difficult or controversial cases. 6 In the administrative case against Judge Eric Calderon, 7 he was found guilty of gross misconduct for falsely claiming to have a lingering illness resulting in leaves of absence for almost a straight period of three years. According to the Court: A judge shall be cautious of his court duties. Here, the judge should have been aware that, in frequently leaving his station, he has caused great disservice to many litigants and has denied them speedy justice. The office of the judge is also required to obey lawful orders of his superiors. In Longboan vs Polig, 8 the respondent judge repeatedly failed to answer a complainant’s request for an update on status of a case. He did not respond to the three tracers sent by The Office of the Court Administrator and he willfully disobeyed and disregarded the Court’s show cause resolutions. Thus, the Court said: … his willful disobedience and disregard to our show-cause resolutions constituted grave and serious misconduct affecting his fitness and the worthiness of the honor and integrity attached to his office. Once again, we hold with great emphasis that: ...The Judge is the visible representation of the law of justice. From him, the people draw their will and awareness to obey the law ..." XXX How can the respondent judge expect others to respect the law when he himself cannot obey orders as simple as the show cause resolution? XXX

Section 2 - Judges shall devote their professional activity to judicial duties, which include not only the performance of judicial functions and responsibilities in court and the making of decisions, but also other tasks relevant to the judicial office or the court’s operations.

5 Agpalo, P. 614, 8th ed., 2009 6 UST Golden Notes 2011 7 Re: Leaves of Absence Without Approval of Judge Eric Calderon, A.M. No. 98-8-105-MTC, Jan. 26, 1999 8 Longboan vs Polig, A.M. No. 704-RTJ, June 14, 1990 7

A judge is the head of the office with respect to his sala. He should organize his court with a view to prompt and convenient dispatch of its business. He should manage, lead, and supervise the employees who assist him in the performance of his judicial duties. Judges should have thorough knowledge of internal rules and procedures, especially those which relate to the scope of their authority.9 Canon 3, Rule 3.08, of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides that: A judge 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. In the case of Longboan vs Polig, 10 the judge mislaid case records. He was dismissed from service having been found guilty of inexcusable negligence, gross inefficiency and grave and serious misconduct in the discharge of his functions. Although blame can also be conveniently laid on the court personnel's mismanagement of the records of cases, proper and efficient court management is as much the judge's responsibility for the Court personnel are not the guardians of a Judge's responsibilities. XXX A judge is expected to ensure that the records of cases assigned to his sala are intact. There is no justification for missing records save fortuitous events. The loss of not one but eight records is indicative of gross misconduct and inexcusable negligence unbecoming of a judge. XXX

Section 3 - Judges shall take reasonable steps to maintain and enhance their knowledge, skills and personal qualities necessary for the proper performance of judicial duties, taking advantage for this purpose the training and other facilities which should be made available, under judicial control, to judges. A judge should be diligent in keeping up-to-date with and in comprehending Supreme Court decisions. To be able to render substantial justice and to maintain public confidence in the legal system, judges are expected to keep abreast of all laws and prevailing jurisprudence, consistent with the standard that magistrates must be the embodiment of competence, integrity, and independence. The people’s conception of good judges has been, and is, of men who have mastery of the principles of law. To be true to such conception, they should exhibit more than just cursory acquaintance with the statutes and procedural rules. They must know the laws and apply them properly and in good faith. Judicial competence requires no less. 11 In the case of Rio vs Cawaling, 12 Judge Cawaling was sanctioned for gross ignorance of law for failure to apply the proper procedure in a criminal case. The court said: 9 Agpalo, P. 609, 8th ed. 2009 10 Longboan vs Polig, A.M. No. 704-RTJ, June 14, 1990 11Agpalo, p. 608, 8th ed. 2009 8

A judge should be the epitome of competence, integrity and independence to be able to render justice and uphold public confidence in the legal system. He must be conversant with basic legal principles and well-settled doctrines. He should strive for excellence and seek the truth with passion.

Section 4 - Judges shall keep themselves informed about relevant developments of international law, including international conventions and other instruments establishing human rights norms.  Be informed about the law Note: Norms of international law has become the concern of judges because they form part of legal standards by which their competence and diligence required by the New Code of Judicial Conduct are to be measured.

Section 5 - Judges shall perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness.  Prompt decision making Note: A judge may be subject to an administrative fine for inefficiency, neglect, and unreasonable delay in elevating the records of a civil case to the Court of Appeals. The essence of the judicial function is expressed in Section 1, Rule 124 of the Revised Rules of Court which provides that “justice shall be impartially administered without unnecessary delay.” This principle permeates the whole system of judicature, and supports the legitimacy of the decrees of judicial tribunals. Why should delay be avoided in the administration of justice? Delay results in undermining the people's faith in the judiciary and from whom the prompt hearing of their supplications is anticipated and expected, and reinforces in the mind of the litigants the impression that the wheels of justice grind ever so slowly. Certainly, undue delay cannot be countenanced at a time when the clogging of the court dockets is still the bane of the judiciary. Judges are expected to observe utmost diligence and dedication in the performance of their judicial functions and the discharge of their duties. (Imbang v. Judge del Rosario, A.M. No. MTJ-03-1515, Feb. 3, 2004)  Judge Pascua was charged with inefficiency in resolving an election protest pending in her sala. It was alleged that she issued an order archiving the case because of her erroneous perception that an appeal was filed by the parties to the SC where in fact the same was filed with the COMELEC. As a result, the hearing as well as the resolution of the case was delayed for 6 months. In her comment, the judge explained that in issuing such order, she relied on the copy of a petition by appeal on certiorari that was shown to her. Should the judge be disciplined? Yes. Judges should maintain professional competence and decide cases within the required periods. Here, had the judge carefully read the copy of the petition by appeal on certiorari that was presented to her, she would have been able to ascertain that the same was not filed with the SC. Moreover, had 12 Rio vs Judge Cawaling, A.M. No. MTJ-02-1391, June 7, 2004 9

she been careful, she would not have issued such erroneous order that caused the undue delay in the resolution of the case. For her inefficiency, the judge should be disciplined. (Dela Cruz v. Pascua, A.M. No. RTJ-99-1461, June 26, 2001).

Section 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. 

Maintain orders in proceedings  Judge Belen was charged with conduct unbecoming of a judge allegedly for humiliating, demeaning and berating a young lawyer who appeared in his sala. It was alleged that when the judge learned that the lawyer was an alumnus of MCQU and not of UP, the judge made the following statement “you’re not from UP”. Then you cannot equate yourself to me because there is a saying and I know this, not all law students are created equal, not all law schools are created equal, not all lawyers are created equal despite what the Supreme Being stated that we all are created equal in His form and substance.” Should the judge be disciplined? Yes. The judge’s sarcastic, humiliating, threatening and boastful remarks to a young lawyer are improper. A judge must be aware that an alumnus of a particular law school has no monopoly of knowledge of the law. By hurdling the Bar Examinations, taking of the Lawyer’s oath, and signing of the Roll of Attorneys, a lawyer is presumed to be competent to discharge his functions and duties as, inter alia, an officer of the court, irrespective of where he obtained his law degree. For a judge to determine the fitness or competence of a lawyer primarily on the basis of his alma mater is clearly an engagement in an argumentum ad hominem. As a judge, he must address the merits of the case and not on the person of the counsel. Judges must be that even on the face of boorish behaviour from those they deal with, they ought to conduct themselves in a manner befitting gentlemen and high officers of the court. (Atty. Mane v. Judge Belen, A.M. No. RTJ-08-2119, June 30, 2008)

Section 7 - Judges shall not engage in conduct incompatible with the diligent discharge of judicial duties.  Not to engage in a conduct contrary to duties The duty under this section  A judge shall not accept duties that will interfere with his devotion to the expeditious and proper administration of his official functions.  Judge Ante Jr. was charged with conduct unbecoming of a judge. It was alleged that when the court employee placed the docket book on top of the filing cabinet, the same fell on the floor causing loud sound. Unexpectedly, the judge shouted saying “why did you throw the docket book? You get out of here, punyeta, we don’t need you!” The judge also threw a monobloc chair at the court employee. Should the judge be disciplined?

10

Yes. The judge, for shouting invectives and hitting complainant with a chair displayed a predisposition to use physical violence and intemperate language which reveals a marked lack of judicial temperament and self-restraint - traits which, aside from the basic equipment of learning in the law - are indispensable qualities of every judge. (Briones v. Judge Ante Jr., A.M. No. MTJ-02-1411, Apr. 11, 2002)

CASE DIGESTS Canon 5 Section 2 – Re: Inhibition of Judge Eddie R. Rojas (292 SCRA 306) Facts: Atty. Rojas was appointed a judge. One of the criminal cases he inherited was one in which he acted as prosecutor. He explained that his delay in inhibiting himself from presiding on that case was he handled that case. He also says that the counsels did not object and he never held “full-blown” hearings anyway. Issue: Whether or not Judge Rojas violated Canon 5

11

Held: Judge is filed & reprimanded. The Rules of Court prevent judges from trying cases where they acted as counsel without the consent of the parties. This prevents not only a conflict of interest but also the appearance of impropriety on the part of the judge. A judge should take no part in a proceeding where his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. He should administer justice impartially & without delay. The prohibition does not only cover hearings but all judicial acts (e.g. orders, resolutions) some of which Judge Rojas did make.

Section 5 – People vs Boras, G.R. 127495, December 22, 2000 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NOLITO BORAS Y DOE, accused-appellant G.R. No. 127495. December 22, 2000

Facts: Nolito Boras was convicted of statutory rape by the RTC for raping a six year old girl, Melanie Medalla. The rape took place on December 13, 1991. Melanie, a six year old girl born on October 23, 1985, was left alone to play in the ground floor of their home. Nolito Boras, a neighbor she was familiar with, asked her to go with him. About 15 meters from her house, accused-appellant told her her that they will have sex. Obeying Boras, she removed her panty. Thereafter, she was placed on top and inbetween accused-appellants legs who then inserted his penis into her vagina. Melanie ran away when she saw her uncle, Cirilo Guirela, arrive. Guirela reported the incident the following day to the Barangay Captain and police authority. On December 15, 1991, Dr. Cynthia S. Algery of Libmanan District Hospital examined the six-year-old victim. The examination revealed hymenal laceration at 3 oclock caused by any organ which is inserted into the vagina, like a penis, and hypremia of the 12

introitus (redness found at the entrance of the vagina. An information for the crime of rape was filed on February 12, 1992. At the trial, the Melanie was asked the following questions: Q: Did you have any opportunity at that time when you were raped to hold the penis of Nolito Boras? A: No, Sir. Q: At the time, when you were raped by Nolito Boras, was his penis hard or soft? A: Hard, sir[28] and Q: Did you see your Uncle Cerilo Guirela after the accused Nolito Boras stop pushing and pulling his penis to your vagina or while he was still in the process of pushing and pulling his penis to your vagina? A: Nolito Boras was not yet finished pushing and pulling his penis to my vagina.[29] Issue: Are the questions legally relevant to the proceeding? Held: No Ratio: In statutory rape, there are two elements that must be established prior to conviction of this crime, namely: (1) that the accused had carnal knowledge of a woman and (2) that the woman is below twelve years of age. It is enough that the child was able to explain in her own way that there was sexual intercourse. The medical report substantiated the allegations made by the victim. By subjecting her into explaining whether she was forced or intimidated is excessive because proof of force and intimidation is unnecessary in statutory rape. Especially in this case, since the child is only six years old who remains uncorrupted. In rape, mere touching of males organ to the pudendum of females organ is enough to consummate the crime. Whether the organ was fully erect or not, to a child of six years of age, slight penetration consummates rape. The questions posed to the child victim were unnecessary, uncalled for, and excessive.

Canon 6 Section 1 – Re: Leaves of Absence Without Approval of Judge Eric T. Calderon, A.M. No. 98-8-105-MTC January 26, 1999 Facts: This administrative matter was brought about following the report of the findings in the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) of unapproved leaves of absence repeatedly incurred by Judge Eric T. Calderon, of the Municipal Trial Court of Calumpit, Bulacan. In 1995, Judge Calderon incurred 109 days of approved absences. In 1996, he incurred 349 days of absences, 40 days of which were approved leaves of absence and 309 days were considered as sick leave without pay. In 1997, 38 days of sick leave without pay from January 1 – February 7 were approved. His absences from February 8 to November 19, 1997 were unapproved.

13

The OCA required Judge Calderon to show cause why no disciplinary action shall be taken against him for having gone on leave without an approved leave of absence. In his response to the OCA on November 19, 1997, he attached a letter from his physician explaining his lingering illness of malignant hypertension. In the same letter, he submitted for approval his leave of absences from February 8 to November 1997. Judge Calderon was requested to proceed to the Court’s Clinic Services for a complete medical evaluation. He only complied and submitted himself for evaluation 6 months after the letter was sent. The physical examination findings and medical evaluation contradicted his claim of malignant hypertension. It was found that Judge Calderon was suffering from Hypertension, Diastolic, Stage 1 and does not fall within the category of malignant hypertension Issue: Whether or not Judge Calderon violated Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct Held: Yes Ratio: Judge Calderon's frequent leaves of absence were found by the Court to be inexcusable and his explanation devoid of merit. He undoubtedly should have been more conscious of his court duties, as well as more cautious of his actuations, than he has heretofore shown in the performance of his functions and the discharge of his responsibilities to the Court and the citizenry. Further, he should have been aware that, in frequently leaving his station, he has caused great disservice to many litigants and has denied them speedy Justice. It could be fairly concluded by just going over his record of frequent and prolonged leaves that he had habitually abandoned his sala in Calumpit, Bulacan, for no justifiable excuse at all. Judge Eric T. Calderon was found guilty of gross misconduct and abandonment of office, the Court hereby DISMISSES him from the service with forfeiture of all benefits and with prejudice to reemployment in any branch, instrumentality or agency of the government, including governmentowned and controlled corporations.

Section 2 – Longboan vs Polig A.M. No. 704-RTJ June 14, 1990 A letter-complaint was addressed to the Court Administrator on July 18, 1986 charging the Judge Emilio L. Polig with gross negligence of duty or abuse of authority for his failure to apprise Feldmerto M. Longboan, the complainant, of the status of Civil Case No. 641. Civil Case No. 641 involved a dispute for collection of a sum of money wtih the complainant as plaintiff. Complainant obtained a favorable judgment from the 2nd Municipal Circuit on October 26, 1981. It was on appeal when the matter subject of the letter-complaint came about. On February 20, 1984, the complainant was informed by Regional Trial Court Judge Nicasio A. Baguilat that Judge Polig, his predecessor, was in possession of the records of Civil Case No. 641 considering that the appeal thereto had been perfected prior to respondent judge's transfer to another RTC Branch. Judge Baguilat's Clerk of Court certified, among others, that Civil Case No. 641 was among the cases retained by respondent judge and that as of the said date no decision therein had been received from the said judge.

14

Meanwhile, the complainant had sent five registered letters inquiring about the status of Civil Case No. 641. The Office of the Court Administrator sent three tracers dated August 12, 1985, April 15, 1986 and June 23, 1986, in relation to the records of Civil Case No. 641. Judge Polig did not respond to any of these requests. On September 9, 1986, the Court ordered the respondent judge to: (a) show cause why no disciplinary or administrative action should be taken against him, and (b) comply with the inquiry within ten (10) days from notice thereof with a warning that failure still to do so would be dealt with accordingly. On July 31, 1987, the Court suspended the respondent judge "immediately and continuing until further orders" for his willful disobedience and disregard of the Court’s previous resolution. On June 1, 1989, Judge Polig manifested that he was unable to submit his comment within the time allotted because the record of Civil Case No. 641 was mislaid when he transferred to another RTC Branch. The said record was found inadvertently mixed up with the disposed and archived cases and he immediately transmitted the same to Judge Baguilat's sala for disposition since he was under suspension; that respondent judge failed to ask for extension of time to make and submit his comment to our show-cause resolution due to "awful shock and anxiety at the thought that the record of the said case may have been lost beyond recovery"; that it took respondent judge a long time to plead for the lifting of his suspension due to "self-reproach and disgust of himself for his omission". Judge Polig deemed his two-year suspension as enough punishment for his omission and asked for the resumption of his judicial functions On June 27, 1989, Deputy Court Administrator Juanita A. Bernad conducted the physical inventory of the cases pending before Judge Polig's sala. On July 4, 1989, Bernad reported that all the cases inventoried were accounted for except four (4) criminal cases where the accused are not under detention and four (4) civil cases which remained missing as of June 29, 1989. Issue: Whether or not Judge Polig violated Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct Held: Yes Ratio: The Court stressed diligence and efficiency attendant to the discharge of a judge's function in the present Code of Judicial Conduct. Canon 3, Rule 3.08, of the said Code provides that: A judge 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. (Under the New Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 6, Sec. 2 provides that Judges shall devote their professional activity to judicial duties, which include not only the performance of judicial functions and responsibilities in court and the making of decisions, but also other tasks relevant to the judicial office or the court’s operations.) Judge Polig impeded the speedy disposition of cases by his successor on account of missing records of cases reflecting an inefficient and disorderly system in the recording of cases assigned to his sala. Although blame can also be conveniently laid on the court personnel's mismanagement of the records of cases, proper and efficient court management is as much the judge's responsibility for the Court personnel are not the guardians of a Judge's responsibilities. The Court also found no justification for the failure to present the 4 criminal cases and 4 civil cases to the Deputy Court Administrator when required and their absence from the place where court records are stored. A judge is expected to ensure that the records of cases assigned to his sala are intact. There is no justification for missing records save fortuitous events. The loss of eight records is indicative of gross misconduct and inexcusable negligence unbecoming of a judge. Judge Polig’s continued silence as to the status of Civil Case No. 641 despite repeated written queries from one of the parties, his failure to reply to the tracers of the Office of the Court Administrator, and his willful disobedience and disregard to the Court’s show-cause resolutions constituted grave and 15

serious misconduct affecting his fitness and the worthiness of the honor and integrity attached to his office. The Court emphasized that the Judge is the visible representation of the law of justice. The Court also asked how Judge Polig can expect others to respect the law when he himself cannot obey orders such as a show cause resolution. The physical inventory of the records of the cases in the RTC where Judge Polig was last assigned before his suspension revealed that a total of 35 cases submitted for decision remained unresolved beyond the 90-day reglementary period. We have consistently held that failure to decide a case within the required period is not excusable and constitutes gross inefficiency. The Court found Judge Polig guilty of inexcusable negligence, gross inefficiency and grave and serious misconduct in the discharge of his functions. He was dismissed from service with forfeiture of all his accrued retirement benefits, leave and other privileges, if any, and with prejudice to reemployment in any branch, agency or instrumentality of the government, including government owned or controlled corporations.

Section 3 – Rio vs Judge Cawaling, A.M. No. MTJ-02-1391, June 7, 2004 RODOLFO RAMA RIO, complainant, vs. JUDGE ALFONSO R. CAWALING, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, CAJIDIOCAN, ROMBLON A.M. No. MTJ-02-1391. June 7, 2004

Facts: Rodolfo Rama Rio, the accused in Criminal Case No. 4511 for grave threats, filed an administrative complaint against Judge Alfonso Cawaling charging the latter with bias and partiality, abuse of authority and gross ignorance of the law relative to the aforementioned case. According to Rio, Judge Cawaling conducted a preliminary investigation without giving him due notice and that a warrant for his arrest was issued even though it was not necessary to place him under police custody. Judge Cawaling alleged that the subpoena was served on Rio at his given address and that of his witnesses, pursuant to Section 3, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Rio submitted his counter-affidavit and preliminary investigation was set. The warrant was issued after the preliminary investigation. Rio posted his bail bond and was released.

16

Judge Cawaling averred that Criminal Case No. 4511 was not covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure as the imposable penalty of grave threats is higher than six months. He had no alternative but to issue the warrant of arrest against Rio. The Executive Judge of the RTC found that Judge Cawaling did not violate the Rules of Procedure when he conducted the preliminary investigation of the criminal case nor did he show bias and partiality against Rio. He recommended that Judge Cawaling be absolved of any liability. Issue: Is Judge Cawaling guilty of gross ignorance of law? Held: Yes Ratio: The Revised Rules on Summary Procedure apply to criminal cases where the penalty prescribed by law for the offense charged is imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months or a fine not exceeding P1,000.00 or both, irrespective of other imposable penalties, accessory or otherwise or of the civil liability arising therefrom. Grave threats under Article 282 of the Revised Penal Code is penalized with imprisonment of one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months (arresto mayor) and a fine not exceeding P500.00, if the threat is not subject to a condition. Thus, the subject criminal case for grave threats should have been tried under the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure. Judge Cawaling applied the regular procedure; he issued a warrant of arrest against the complainant after making a preliminary examination of the affidavit against the latter. Hence, the complainant was constrained to post bail, which was no longer necessary considering that the charge against him was simply grave threats. Section 2 of the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure provides that upon the filing of a civil or criminal action, the court shall issue an order declaring whether or not the case shall be governed by (the) Rule. The said provision further states that patently erroneous determination to avoid the application of the (Rules on Summary Procedure) is a ground for disciplinary action. It is clear then that the respondent judge ought to be sanctioned for his failure to apply the proper procedure. A judge should be the epitome of competence, integrity and independence to be able to render justice and uphold public confidence in the legal system. He must be conversant with basic legal principles and well-settled doctrines. He should strive for excellence and seek the truth with passion. Judge Cawaling was fined Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) and sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar act would be dealt with more severely.

Section 5 – Dela Cruz vs Pascua, A.M. No. RTJ-99-1461 - June 26, 2001 Facts: In the instant administrative complaint, filed with the Office of the Court Administrator(OCA), complainant Dela Cruz alleges that respondent judge committed falsification when sheissued the order dated August 28, 1995 deferring the hearing of Sp. Proc. Case No. 0743Tuntil further orders. In her order, she stated that a "Petition by Appeal on Certiorari“ was filedwith this Court by Nena Ocaña and Nelson Cuaresma questioning her (respondent judge's)order denying their motion for intervention. According to them, they did not file such petitionwith this Court. Respondent judge must be referring to the appeal by certiorari of Ocaña andCuaresma to the COMELEC.Complainant also alleges that respondent judge violated Section 17 (par. 1), Rule 35 of the Rules of Procedure of the COMELEC by delaying the disposition of his election protest. OnDecember 26, 1995, she issued an order directing 17

motu propio that the election protest bearchived, stating that "this Court cannot take action on this case because of the fact that Nena Ocaña and Nelson Cuaresma have gone to the Supreme Court . . ." Because the casewas archived, there was a delay of more than six (6) months from the time the hearing wasdeferred on August 28, 1995 up to the time the records were retrieved from the archives andset again for hearing on February 29, 1996. Issue: Whether or not respondent has violated Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Ethics? Held: The Court held, pursuant to this Court Administrative Circular No. 7-A-92, as amended,a judge may order that a civil case be archived only in the following instances:"a) When the parties are in the process of settlement, in which case the proceedingsmay be suspended and the case archived for a period not exceeding ninety (90) days. The case shall be included in the trial calendar on the day immediately following thelapse of the suspension period.b) When an interlocutory order or incident in the civil case is elevated to, and ispending resolution/decision for an indefinite period before a higher court which hasissued a temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction.c) When defendant, without fault or neglect of plaintiff, cannot be served withsummons within six (6) months from issuance of original summons."None of the above instances is present in this case.By issuing the said orders, respondent judge was negligent in her duties, tantamount toinefficiency, which, in turn, caused the undue delay in the disposition of complainant'selection protest. Her conduct violates Section 17(1), Rule 35 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure which provides:"The court shall decide the election contest within thirty (30) days from the date it is submitted for decision, but in every case within six (6) months after its filing, and shall declare who among the parties has been elected, or in a proper case, that none of them has been legally elected. The party who in the judgment has been declared elected shall have the right to assume the office as soon as the judgment becomes final."

Section 6 – Mane vs Belen, A.M. No. RTJ-08-2119, 30 June 2008 ATTY. MELVIN D.C. MANE v. JUDGE MEDEL ARNALDO B. BELEN, A.M. No. RTJ-08-2119, 30 June 2008 Facts: Petitioner Atty. Melvin D.C. Mane filed a letter-complaint to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) charging respondent Judge Medel Arnaldo B. Belen of ―demeaning, humilating, and berating‖ him during a hearing of Rural Bank of Cabuyao, Inc. v. Samue Malabanan, et al. where Mane was counsel for the plaintiff. During the proceedings, Belen asked Mane about the latter’s law school. When Mane answered that he came from Manuel L. Quezon University (MLQU), Belen told him: ―Then you’re not from UP. Then you cannot equate yourself to me because there is a saying and I know this, not all law students are created equal, not all law schools are created equal, not all lawyers are created equal despite what the Supreme Being that we all are created equal in His form and substance.‖

18

Belen further lambasted Mane and lectured him on the latter’s person, seemingly disregarding the case at hand. Subsequently, the OCA, upon evaluation, found that Belen’s insulting remarks were unwarranted and inexcusable and recommended a reprimand of Belen.

Issue: Whether or not the statements and actions made by Judge Belen during the hearing constitute conduct unbecoming of a judge and a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct

Held: The Court held that an alumnus of a particular law school has no monopoly of knowledge of the law. By hurdling the Bar Examinations which the Court administers, taking of the Lawyer’s oath, and signing of the Roll of Attorneys, a lawyer is presumed to be competent to discharge his functions and duties as, inter alia an officer of the court, irrespective of where he obtained his law degree. For a judge to determine the fitness or competence of a lawyer primarily on his alma mater is clearly an engagement in an argumentum ad hominem. A judge must address the merits of the case and not the person of the counsel. If Judge Belen felt that his integrity and dignity were being ―assaulted, ‖ he acted properly when he directed complainant to explain why he should not be cited for contempt. He went out of bounds, however, when he engaged on a supercilious legaland personal discourse. The Court reminded members of the bench that even on the face of boorish behavior from those they deal with, they ought to conduct themselves in a manner befitting gentlemen and high officers of the court.

Section 7 –Briones vs CA, G.R. No. 204444, January 14, 2015

19

VIRGILIO C. BRIONES, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS AND CASH ASIA CREDIT CORPORATION, G.R. No. 204444, January 14, 2015 Facts: The instant case arose from a Complaint6 dated August 2, 2010 filed by Virgilio C. Briones (Briones) for Nullity of Mortgage Contract, Promissory Note, Loan Agreement, Foreclosure of Mortgage, Cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No.290846, and Damages against Cash Asia before the RTC.7 In his complaint, Briones alleged that he is the owner of a property covered by TCT No. 160689 (subject property),and that, on July 15, 2010, his sister informed him that his property had been foreclosed and a writ of possession had already been issued in favor of Cash Asia.8 Upon investigation, Briones discovered that: (a) on December 6, 2007, he purportedly executed a promissory note,9 loan agreement,10 and deed of real estate mortgage11covering the subject property (subject contracts) in favor of Cash Asia in order to obtain a loan in the amount of P3,500,000.00 from the latter;12 and (b) since the said loan was left unpaid, Cash Asia proceeded to foreclose his property.13 In this relation, Briones claimed that he never contracted any loans from Cash Asia as he has been living and working in Vietnam since October 31, 2007. He further claimed that he only went back to the Philippines on December 28, 2007 until January 3, 2008 to spend the holidays with his family, and that during his brief stay in the Philippines, nobody informed him of any loan agreement entered into with Cash Asia. Essentially, Briones assailed the validity of the foregoing contracts claiming his signature to be forged.14chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary For its part, Cash Asia filed a Motion to Dismiss15 dated August 25, 2010, praying for the outright dismissal of Briones’s complaint on the ground of improper venue.16 In this regard, Cash Asia pointed out the venue stipulation in the subject contracts stating that “all legal actions arising out of this notice in connection with the Real Estate Mortgage subject hereof shall only be brought in or submitted to the jurisdiction of the proper court of Makati City.”17 In view thereof, it contended that all actions arising out of the subject contracts may only be exclusively brought in the courts of Makati City, and as such, Briones’s complaint should be dismissed for having been filed in the City of Manila.18chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary In response, Briones filed an opposition,19 asserting, inter alia, that he should not be covered by the venue stipulation in the subject contracts as he was never a party therein. He also reiterated that his signatures on the said contracts were forgeries.20chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary Issue: Whether or not the CA gravely abused its discretion in ordering the outright dismissal of Briones’s complaint on the ground of improper venue. Ruling: The petition is meritorious. At the outset, the Court stresses that “[t]o justify the grant of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari, [the petitioner] must satisfactorily show that the court or quasi-judicial authority gravely abused the discretion conferred upon it. Grave abuse of discretion connotes judgment exercised in a capricious and whimsical manner that is tantamount to lack of jurisdiction. To be considered ‘grave,’ discretion must be exercised in a despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by or to act at all in contemplation of law.” Guided by the foregoing considerations, the Court finds that the CA gravely abused its discretion in ordering the outright dismissal of Briones’s complaint against Cash Asia, without prejudice to its refiling before the proper court in Makati City. Rule 4 of the Rules of Court governs the rules on venue of civil actions. 20

Rule 4 VENUE OF ACTIONS SECTION 1. Venue of real actions. — Actions affecting title to or possession of real property, or interest therein, shall be commenced and tried in the proper court which has jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated. Forcible entry and detainer actions shall be commenced and tried in the municipal trial court of the municipality or city wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated. SEC. 2. Venue of personal actions. — All other actions may be commenced and tried where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiffs resides, or where the defendant or any of the principal defendants resides, or in the case of a non-resident defendant where he may be found, at the election of the plaintiff. SEC. 3. Venue of actions against nonresidents. — If any of the defendants does not reside and is not found in the Philippines, and the action affects the personal status of the plaintiff, or any property of said defendant located in the Philippines, the action may be commenced and tried in the court of the place where the plaintiff resides, or where the property or any portion thereof is situated or found. SEC. 4. When Rule not applicable. — This Rule shall not apply – (a) In those cases where a specific rule or law provides otherwise; or (b) Where the parties have validly agreed in writing before the filing of the action on the exclusive venue thereof. Based therefrom, the general rule is that the venue of real actions is the court which has jurisdiction over the area wherein the real property involved, or a portion thereof, is situated; while the venue of personal actions is the court which has jurisdiction where the plaintiff or the defendant resides, at the election of the plaintiff. As an exception, jurisprudence in Legaspi v. Rep. of the Phils.33 instructs that the parties, thru a written instrument, may either introduce another venue where actions arising from such instrument may be filed, or restrict the filing of said actions in a certain exclusive venue. In this case, the venue stipulation found in the subject contracts is indeed restrictive in nature, considering that it effectively limits the venue of the actions arising therefrom to the courts of Makati City. However, it must be emphasized that Briones’s complaint directly assails the validity of the subject contracts, claiming forgery in their execution. Given this circumstance, Briones cannot be expected to comply with the aforesaid venue stipulation, as his compliance therewith would mean an implicit recognition of their validity. Hence, pursuant to the general rules on venue, Briones properly filed his complaint before a court in the City of Manila where the subject property is located. In conclusion, the CA patently erred and hence committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing Briones’s complaint on the ground of improper venue. Report prepared as follows: Mary Rose D. Magsayo Karen Liz D. Obero Myrna A. Obus

Canon 5, Sections 1 to 4 Canon 5, Section 5 Canon 6, Sections 1 to 3 Canon 6, Sections 4 to 7

21