-
8/8/2019 Administrative Disciplinary Action by Supreme Court
1/35
ADMINISTRATIVE
DISCIPLINARY
ACTION BY
SUPREME COURT
-
8/8/2019 Administrative Disciplinary Action by Supreme Court
2/35
ADMINISTRATIVE
LIABILITY
Justices of the Supreme
Court may be removed
from office on
impeachment, for and
conviction of, culpableviolation of the
Constitution.
-
8/8/2019 Administrative Disciplinary Action by Supreme Court
3/35
VIOLATION OF THE
CONSTITUTION:Treason
BriberyGraft and Corruption
Betrayals of thepublic trust
-
8/8/2019 Administrative Disciplinary Action by Supreme Court
4/35
All other Justices and
Judges from the Court
of Appeals to the lowest
level may be removedfrom office as provided
by law, but not byimpeachment.
-
8/8/2019 Administrative Disciplinary Action by Supreme Court
5/35
AUTHORITY TO DISCIPLINE
The Supreme Court shall
have administrative
supervision over all courtsand the personnel thereof.
Complaints against Judgesshould accordingly filed
with the Supreme Court.
-
8/8/2019 Administrative Disciplinary Action by Supreme Court
6/35
ACTS OR OMISSIONS WHICH
CONSTITUTE GROUNDS FORDISCIPLINE
Malfeasance
Misfeasance
Nonfeasance
-
8/8/2019 Administrative Disciplinary Action by Supreme Court
7/35
Malfeasance- performance of
some act which ought not tobe done.
Misfeasance- improper
performance of some act
which might lawfully be done.
Nonfeasance- omission of anact which ought to be
performed.
-
8/8/2019 Administrative Disciplinary Action by Supreme Court
8/35
GROUNDS FOR SUSPENSION
OR DISMISSAL:Those related to the
discharge of the functions of
the office concerned.
yNeglect of duty
y
OppressionyCorruption
yMaladministration
-
8/8/2019 Administrative Disciplinary Action by Supreme Court
9/35
Those not related to, or
connected with, the
functions of the office,
such as commission ofthe crime.
-
8/8/2019 Administrative Disciplinary Action by Supreme Court
10/35
CLASSIFICATIONS OFCHARGES IN SERIOUS,
LESS SERIOUS AND
LIGHT CHARGES
-
8/8/2019 Administrative Disciplinary Action by Supreme Court
11/35
SERIOUS CHARGES:
Bribery, direct or indirect.Dishonesty and violations of the Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Law (R.A.
No. 3019).
Gross misconduct constituting
violations of the Code of Judicial
Conduct.
Knowingly rendering an unjustjudgement or order as determined by
a competent court in an appropriate
proceeding.
-
8/8/2019 Administrative Disciplinary Action by Supreme Court
12/35
Conviction of crime including
moral turpitude.Willful failure to pay a just debt.
Borrowing money or property from
lawyers and litigants in a casepending before the court.
Immorality
Gross ignorance of the law orprocedure
Partisan political activities
Alcoholism and/or vicious habits.
-
8/8/2019 Administrative Disciplinary Action by Supreme Court
13/35
LESS SERIOUS CHARGES:
Undue delay in rendering adecision or order or in
transmitting records of the case.
Frequent and unjustifiedabsences without leave or
habitual tardiness.
Unauthorized practice of law.
Violation of Supreme Court
rules, directive and circulars.
-
8/8/2019 Administrative Disciplinary Action by Supreme Court
14/35
Receiving additional or doublecompensation unless specifically
authorized by law.
Simple misconductUntruthful statements in the
certificate of service.
-
8/8/2019 Administrative Disciplinary Action by Supreme Court
15/35
LIGHT CHARGES:
Vulgar and unbecoming
conduct.
Gambling in public.Fraternizing with lawyers and
litigants with pending case/cases
in his courtUndue delay in the submission of
month reports.
-
8/8/2019 Administrative Disciplinary Action by Supreme Court
16/35
Serious charges are
those which require
sanctions from a
fine of not exceeding
P40,000.00 to
dismissal from
service.
-
8/8/2019 Administrative Disciplinary Action by Supreme Court
17/35
The less serious charges
are those which warrant
the imposition of
sanctions ranging from afine not exceeding
P20,000.00 to suspension
from service of not more
than three(3) months.
-
8/8/2019 Administrative Disciplinary Action by Supreme Court
18/35
The light charges may
entail sanctions fromadmonition with warning to
a fine not exceeding
P10,000.00. however,
repeated violations of light
offenses may render ajudge liable for less serious
or even serious charges.
-
8/8/2019 Administrative Disciplinary Action by Supreme Court
19/35
VIOLATION OF SUPREME COURT
RULES, DIRECTIVE AND CIRCULARSThe failure of a judge to respond to show-
cause resolution of the Supreme Court; or
his disobedience of a suspension order of
the high tribunal or of the lawful orders of
superior courts renders him
administratively liable for such infraction.
The judges refusal to comply with the
Courts resolution requiring him to file hiscomment on the administrative charge
against him aggravates his offense and
justifies stiffer penalty.
-
8/8/2019 Administrative Disciplinary Action by Supreme Court
20/35
A judge who did not inhibit himself from
trying case, where he is disqualified from
doing so by law, such as a case involving hisuncle or grandson, is guilty of abuse of
authority warranting imposition of
administrative sanction.
A judge who travelled abroad without
requesting for permission from the Supreme
Court may be dealt with disciplinarily, as the
same is a violation of a standing circular of theSupreme Court, and if the same has been so
repeated as to amount to abandonment of
office, he may be dismissed from service.
-
8/8/2019 Administrative Disciplinary Action by Supreme Court
21/35
A judge commits abuse of discretion
deserving disciplinary action, in
hearing a contentious motion on the
same day the same was filed, as he
violates the three-day rule on
hearing motions.The fact that the
counsel for the adverse party is
present by happenstance provides
no excuse, for setting a motion for
hearing on shorter notice may only
be for good cause.
-
8/8/2019 Administrative Disciplinary Action by Supreme Court
22/35
-
8/8/2019 Administrative Disciplinary Action by Supreme Court
23/35
ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEDURE
-
8/8/2019 Administrative Disciplinary Action by Supreme Court
24/35
HOW PROCEEDINGS ARE
INSTITUTED:
Proceedings for the discipline of judges of
regular and special courts and Justices of
the Court of Appeals and the
Sandiganbayan may be institutedmotuproprio by the Supreme Court or upon a
verified complaint, supported by affidavits
of persons who have personal knowledge
of the facts alleged therein by documentswhich may substantiate said allegations, or
upon an anonymous complaint, supported
by public records of indubitable integrity
-
8/8/2019 Administrative Disciplinary Action by Supreme Court
25/35
The complaint shall be in
writing and shall state clearly
and concisely the acts and
omissions constitutingviolations of standards of
conduct prescribed for Judges
by law, the Rules of Court, orthe Code of Judicial Conduct.
-
8/8/2019 Administrative Disciplinary Action by Supreme Court
26/35
ACTION ON THE
COMPLAINT
If the complaint is sufficient in
form and substance, a copy
thereof shall be served uponthe respondent, and he shall
be required to comment
within ten(10) days from thedate of service. Otherwise,
the same shall be dismissed.
-
8/8/2019 Administrative Disciplinary Action by Supreme Court
27/35
Some administrative cases against
Justices of the Court of Appeals and the
Sandiganbayan; judges of regular andspecial courts, and other court officials
who are lawyers are based on the
grounds for the disciplinary action ofmembers of the Bar for the violation of
the lawyers oath, Code of Professional
Ethics, or for such other forms of
breaches of conduct that have been
traditionally recognized as grounds for
the disciplinary of lawyers.
-
8/8/2019 Administrative Disciplinary Action by Supreme Court
28/35
HEARING
The investigating
Justice or Judge shall
set a day for the
hearing and send
notice thereof to both
parties.
-
8/8/2019 Administrative Disciplinary Action by Supreme Court
29/35
DECISION; SANCTIONS
The Court shall take such
action on the report as the
facts and the law may warrant,which may be dismissing the
complaint or holding the
judge liable and imposing the
corresponding penalty
against him.
-
8/8/2019 Administrative Disciplinary Action by Supreme Court
30/35
IF THE RESPONDENT IS GUILTY
OF A SERIOUS CHARGE
Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part
of the benefits as this Court may determine, and
disqualification from reinstatement or
appointment to any public office, including
government owned or controlled corporations:
Provided, however, That the forfeiture of benefits
shall in no case include accrued leave credits.
Suspension from office without salary and other
benefits for more than three(3) months but not
exceeding six(6) months.
Or a fine of more than P20,000.00 but not
exceeding P40,000.00.
-
8/8/2019 Administrative Disciplinary Action by Supreme Court
31/35
IF THE RESPONDENT IS
GUILTY OF A LESS SERIOUS
CHARGE
Suspension from office without
salary and other benefits for notless than one(1) month nor morethan three(3) months.
A fine of more than P10,000.00but not exceeding P20,000.00.
-
8/8/2019 Administrative Disciplinary Action by Supreme Court
32/35
IF THE RESPONDENT IS
GUILTY OF A LIGHT CHARGEA fine of not less than
P1,000.00 but not
exceeding P10,000.00;and/or
Censure;Reprimand;
Admonition and warning.
-
8/8/2019 Administrative Disciplinary Action by Supreme Court
33/35
CONFIDENTIALITY OF
PROCEEDINGS
Proceedings against Judges ofregular and special courts and
Justices of the Court of Appeals and
the Sandiganbayan shall be privateand confidential.
The confidential character ofproceedings during their pendency
has a three-fold purpose.y To enable the Supreme Court to make
its investigation free from anyextraneous influence orinterferences.
-
8/8/2019 Administrative Disciplinary Action by Supreme Court
34/35
y To protect the personal and professional
reputation of the Justices and Judges frombaseless charges of disgruntled, vindictiveand irresponsible persons or litigants byprohibiting the publication of such chargespending their final resolution.
y
To deter the press from publishing thecharges or proceedings based thereon foreven a verbatim reproduction of the complainagainst a Judge in a newspaper may beactionable.
o However, the confidentiality of theproceedings is a privilege or right whichmay be waived by the Judge.
-
8/8/2019 Administrative Disciplinary Action by Supreme Court
35/35
After the Supreme Court shall have
rendered its decision or resolutionin the administrative case, a copy
thereof is attached to the record of
the respondent in the Office of theCourt administrator.The
proceeding then ceases to be
confidential, and the decision
becomes a public document, just
like any other decisions of the
Court.