Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 1: Duty to uphold the independence and integrity of the judiciary Canon 2: Duty to avoid

impropriety and the appearance of impropriety Simbajon vs Esteban Aug 11, 1999 Facts: Ana May Simbajon (complainant) alleges that Judge Rogelio Esteban (respondent) had sexually harassed her on at least two counts, verbally and physically. Respondents defense is mere denial, and the investigating officer Judge Farado of the RTC is not convinced, he recommends a disrobement. Held: Denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is a negative and self-serving evidence which deserves no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value over the testimony of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. A woman would not subject herself to such distressful circumstances if she were not in fact telling the truth. Mere preponderance of evidence is enough to prove the guilt of a Judicial officer. Respondent was dismissed from service.

Apiag vs Cantero Feb 12, 1997 Facts: Maria Apiag and Esmeraldo Cantero were married on August 11, 1947. They had two children: Teresita and Glicerio. Cantero left his family without any apparent cause and l e ft Mari a to rai se the fami l y on her own. Accordi ng to Cante ro, the i r marriage was a drama marriage set-up by their parents and that they never lived together as husband wi fe . Several years after, Cante ro we nt to Hi nu ndayan, Southern Leyte where Apiag and her children were staying. They begged for support but he i gnore d the m. The y se nt hi m a l e tte r demandi ng support whi ch was al so ignored. They learned that he was already married to Nievas Ygay with whom he has 5 children. Apiag along with her 2 children, Teresita & Glicerio, filed charge of gross mi sconduct for commi tti ng bi gamy and fal si fi cation of publ i c documents agai nst Cantero. Cantero claims that he got married without any annulment or declaration of nullity of his first marriage because he believed that it was void ab initio thus nothing was to be voided. Apiag was living with another man with whom she has one child. The parties entered into a compromise agreement. Cantero agreed to give of his GS I S r e t i r e m e n t t o T e r e s i t a & G l i c e r i o . H e l i k e w i s e i n c l u d e d t h e m a s h i s beneficiaries, appointed them as heirs to his property inherited from his parents, authorized them to receive P4,000.00 monthly allowance on the condition that they will withdraw the charges.

They started receiving the allowance but they still pushed through wi th the case. Found gui l ty by l owe r court. Cantero di ed whi l e case was pending. Issues: WON gross misconduct is applicable? WON judge is liable? Held: NO. Misconduct in office should include only those acts which affect ones performance of his duties as an officer, not as a private individual. Prove that it is a transgressi on of an establ i shed and defi ni te rul e of acti on. Invol ved here are personal acts, not official. YES. He wi l l be admi ni str atively l i able. Hes expected to mai ntai n hi gh ethi cal pri nci ples and free from appearance of i mpropri ety i ncluding hi s personal behavior. But since this is his only wrongdoing throughout the 32 years that he has served the government and the Court saw his sincerity to repent and reform, hell be dealt with leniency. He should have been fined but since he passed away already, case will just be dismissed. Talens-Dabon vs Arceo July 25, 1996 Facts: Jocelyn Talens-Dabon (complainant) a clerk of court working in the RTC of Pampanga filed a complaint against Judge Hermin Arceo (respondent) for gross misconduct and later amended it to include immorality. Three days after complainant reported to her work she was summoned by respondent to his chambers and was deeply disturbed by how he would look at her, duly noted is that fact that she did not want to work for respondent for he had a reputation of being improper and disrespectful. Complainant observed that

respondent was rude and green minded during her tenure. He would also make bodily contact to petitioner and other females in the vicinity whenever he felt like it, and kissed petitioner and many other females in his office. The last straw was when respondent gave complainant a letter which was sexually depraved and attempted to initiate sexual contact. Held: The investigating officers found that Judge Arceo was unworthy to hold the mantle of judge and recommended dismissal from office, the Supreme Court agreed. Canon 3: Duty to perform honestly impartially and diligently Rules 1 to 7: Adjudicative Responsibilities Case: In re: Jose Pinon July 8, 1994 Comelec Resolution No. 2521 seeks to impose administrative disciplinary action against respondent Judge for issuing an allegedly illegal order and for gross ignorance of the law. The judge in question Jose Pinon acted with grave abuse of authority and went beyond his jurisdiction when he rendered judgment on a case that was exclusively in the jurisdiction of the COMELECT. The Supreme Court found respondent to be liable for gross ignorance of the law and fined him 35,000 pesos. A judge is expected to be versed in the law, and the fundamental principles of

our land. His post requires him to be extra-diligent in the process of his duties. Rules 8 to 11: Administrative Responsibilities Canon 4: Duty to improve the law, legal system and administration of justice Canon 5: Duty to regulate extra-judicial activities Case: Tabao vs De Asis Jan 30, 1996 Sps Sadik vs Judge Casar Jan 2, 1997 Makadaya Sadik was a beneficiary of a life insurance policy. With her co-beneficiaries, she hired respondent Casar as counsel in a complaint against Grepalife to recover the proceeds of the policy. Judgment was rendered in favor of the beneficiaries and Grepalife was ordered to pay P30,000. At this time, Casar had already become a Judge. The plaintiffs claim for double indemnity was denied, thus, Casar, as counsel, appealed to the CA and subsequently to the SC. When the judgment became final, Judge Casar collected the check and cashed it but did not deliver the money to the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs filed this administrative complaint against respondent for misconduct and misappropriation. Respondent interposed as his defenses that he had the right to retain the amount until his expenses were paid, that petitioner Sadik is an impostor, and that he is not guilty of misconduct as he accepted the case before he became a judge.

Issue : Whether or not respondent is guilty of misconduct and misappropriation. A judge should always be moral and proper and must always act with honesty and integrity. Held: YES The records show that even after he became judge, respondent acted as counsel for herein complainants and misappropriated the judgment award of P30,000.00 which rightfully belongs to complainants. He actively handled the case on appeal. He violated Rule 5:07 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which states that "A judge shall not engage in the private practice of law." Moreover, respondent's line of defense revealed a significant and deplorable flaw in his character. In hoping to redeem himself, he categorically admitted that he deliberately, knowingly and willfully agreed to handle a case involving a fraudulent insurance claim and in the process procured and presented false witnesses in court. Insistence on personal integrity and honesty as indispensable qualifications for judicial office reflect an awareness in the legal profession of the immensity of the damage that can be done to the legal order by judicial corruption. To be effective in his role, a judge must be a man of exceptional integrity and honesty. The special urgency for requiring these qualities in a judge is not hard to understand for the judge acts directly upon the property, liberty, even life, of his countrymen. Hence, being in a position of such grave responsibility in the administration of justice, a judge must conduct himself in a manner befitting the dignity of such exalted office. Canons of Judicial Ethics 1 to 31