Q&A For Legal Ethics
Q&A For Legal Ethics
Q&A For Legal Ethics
A: Chief Justice as ex officio Chairman, the Secretary of Justice, and a representative of the Congress as
ex officio Members, a representative of the Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a retired Member of the
Supreme Court, and a representative of the private sector.
The Congress needs only ONE representative, either from the Senate or the House of Representatives.
The practice of having two (2) representatives from each House of Congress with one (1) vote each is
unconstitutional.
The composition of the JBC reflects the Commission's desire to have in the Council a representation for
the major elements of the community.
Q: Is a faulty legal strategy by an applicant for a vacant seat for Justice of the Supreme Court reflect
doubtful integrity?
A: No. Without a clear showing of gross neglect, iniquity, or immoral purpose, a strategy of a legal mind
remains a legal tactic acceptable to some and deplorable to others. It has no direct bearing on his moral
choices. (Jardeleza v. Sereno (2014))
Q: Sec.2, Rule 10 of JBC-009 states that: Votes required when integrity of a qualified applicant is
challenged – In every case where the integrity of an applicant who is not otherwise disqualified for
nomination is raised or challenged, the affirmative vote of all the Members of the Council must be
obtained for the favorable consideration of his nomination.
Are issues concerning extra-marital affairs and insider trading valid questions on integrity?
A: Yes. A lawyer who engages in extra-marital affairs is deemed to have failed to adhere to the exacting
standards of morality and decency which every member of the Judiciary is expected to observe. Moral
character is not a subjective term but one that corresponds to objective reality.
The element of “willingness” to linger in indelicate relationships imputes a weakness in one’s values,
self-control and on the whole, sense of honor, not only because it is a bold disregard of the sanctity of
marriage and o the law, but because it erodes the public’s confidence in the Judiciary.
Insider trading involves the trading of securities based on knowledge of material information not
disclosed to the public at the time. Clearly, an allegation of insider trading involves the propensity of a
person to engage in fraudulent activities that may speak of his moral character. (Jardeleza v. Sereno
(2014))
A: No. Judges do not, and are not allowed, to issue legal opinions. Their opinions are always in the
context of judicial decisions, or concurring and dissenting opinions in the case of collegiate courts, and
always in the context of contested proceedings. (Office of the Court Administrator v. Atty. Liangco,
(2011))
Q: Does the issuance of a legal opinion by a judge constitute a violation of judicial conduct?
A: Yes. Issuance of a “legal opinion” without due notice and hearing to all parties concerned projects the
image of partiality. Canon 3, particularly Section 2 of the new code, exhorts judges not only to be
impartial in deciding the cases before them, but also to project the image of impartiality.
Also, it constitutes gross ignorance of the law. Displaying an utter lack of familiarity with the rules, he in
effect erodes the public’s confidence in the competence of our courts. Moreover, he demonstrates his
ignorance of the power and responsibility that attach to the processes and issuances of a judge, and that
he as a member of the bar should know. (Office of the Court Administrator v. Atty. Liangco, (2011))
Q: Should the misconduct of respondent judge in the previous questions also warrant his disbarment
from the legal profession?
A: Yes. In Samson v. Judge Caballero, 595 SCRA 42 (2009), we 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
latter’s moral fitness as a lawyer. A judge who disobeys the basic rules of judicial conduct also violates
the lawyer’s oath. (Office of the Court Administrator v. Atty. Liangco, (2011))
Q: When a justice fails to attribute a quotation to its author without malicious intent, is that
plagiarism?
A: No. Never in the judiciary’s more than 100 years of history has the lack of attribution been regarded
and demeaned as plagiarism (Bernas The 1987 Philippine Constitution: A Comprehensive Reviewer, 2012
Supplement).
On occasions judges and justices have mistakenly cited the wrong sources, failed to use quotation
marks, inadvertently omitted necessary information from footnotes or endnotes. But these do not, in
every case, amount to misconduct. Only errors that are tainted with fraud, corruption, or malice are
subject of disciplinary action. (In Re Justice del Castillo (2011))
Fees & Cost
Q: What are the rules to be followed by Sheriffs?
A: (1) prepare an estimate of expenses to be incurred in executing the writ, for which he must seek the
court’s approval; (2) render an accounting; and (3) issue an official receipt for the total amount he
received from the judgment debtor. (Sanga v. Alcantara)
Q: Are sheriffs allowed to take voluntary payments from parties in the course of the performance of
their duties?
A: No. To do so would be inimical to the best interests of the service, because even assuming arguendo
that the payments were indeed given and received in good faith, this fact alone would not dispel the
suspicion that such payments were made for less than noble purposes.
Corollary to this point, a sheriff cannot just unilaterally demand sums of money from a party litigant
without observing the proper procedural steps; otherwise, such act would amount to dishonesty or
extortion. (Sanga v. Alcantara)
The misconduct is grave if it involves any of the additional elements of corruption, willful intent to
violate the law or to disregard established rules. (Sanga v. Alcantara)
A: Largo v. CA explained that an administrative offense constitutes ‘misconduct’ when it has direct
relation to, and is connected with, the performance of the official duties of the one charged.
(Hernando v. Bengson, 2012)
A: Yes. In the case of Hernando v. Bengson, the Court held that Bengson’s acted in her private capacity,
therefore cannot be made liable for misconduct. However, her actions tarnished the image and integrity
of her public office, therefore must still be held liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the
service. The basis for her liability is found in Republic Act No. 6713 (R.A. 6713) or the Code of Conduct
and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.
A: Immorality has been defined to include not only sexual matters but also “conduct inconsistent with
rectitude, or indicative of corruption, indecency, depravity, and dissoluteness; or is willful, flagrant or
shameless conduct showing moral indifference to opinions of respectable members of the community,
and an inconsiderate attitude toward good order and public welfare.” (Judge Adlawan v. Capilitan)
Q: What standard of morality is expected to that of court personnel?
A: The Code of Judicial Ethics mandates that the conduct of court personnel must be free from any whiff
of impropriety, not only with respect to his duties in the judicial branch but also to his behavior outside
the court as a private individual. There is no dichotomy of morality; a court employee is also judged by
his private morals. The exacting standards of morality and decency have been strictly adhered to and
laid down by the Court to those in the service of the Judiciary. Respondent, as a court stenographer, did
not live up to her commitment to lead a moral life. (Judge Adlawan v. Capilitan)
Q: What is the responsibility of a Clerk of Court? Can the Clerk of Court be held liable for shortage of
court funds?
A: Yes. The Clerks of Court perform a very delicate function as custodian of the court’s funds, revenues,
records, property and premises. They wear many hats—those of treasurer, accountant, guard and
physical plant manager of the court, hence, they are “entrusted with the primary responsibility of
correctly and
effectively implementing regulations regarding fiduciary funds” and are thus, “liable for any loss,
shortage, destruction or impairment of such funds and property.” (Office of the Court Administrator vs.
Lometillo)
A: Yes, the Court held that the failure of the Clerk of Court to remit the court funds constitutes gross
neglect of duty, dishonesty, and grave misconduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
(Office of the Administrator vs. Peradilla)
A: Yes. Delayed remittance of cash collections constitutes gross neglect of duty because this
omission deprives the court of interest that may be earned if the amounts are deposited in a bank.
(Office of the Court Administrator vs. Lometillo)
Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.
Alternative Proxies: