impartiality (rules of court)

8/17/2019 Impartiality (Rules of Court)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/impartiality-rules-of-court 1/33

PART AL TY

Impartiality is essential to the

proper discharge of the

judicial office. It applies notonly to the decision itself but

also to the process by whichthe decision is made.



WHAT ARE THE TWO CONCEPTS OF IMPARTIALITY?

ANS: The two concepts of impartiality are:

a. Impartial with respect to the DECISIOitself! and

b. Impartial with regards to the "#OCESS

I $##I%I& $T $ DECISIO



SECTION 1

'udges shall perform

their judicial dutieswithout fa(or) bias or

prejudice.



*O+ TO "#O%E ,I$S- "$#TI$IT/-

0clear and con(incing e(idence

0a judge1s conduct must be clearly

indicati(e of arbitrariness and

prejudice before it can be stigmati2edas bias and partial.



$ judge has both the duty of

rendering a just decision and the duty

of doing it in a manner completelyfree from suspicion as to his fairness

and as to his integrity. It is the duty of

all judges not only to be impartial but

also to 3$""E$# I4"$#TI$5.



SECTION 2

'udges shall ensure that his or

her conduct) both in and out of

court) maintains and enhancesthe confidence of the public) the

legal profession and litigants in

the impartiality of the judge andof the judiciary.



SECTION 3

'udges shall) so far as is

reasonable) so conduct

themsel(es as to minimi2e theoccasions on which it will be

necessary for them to bedis6ualified from hearing or

deciding cases.



WHEN SHOULD A JUDGE

INHIBIT HIMSELF FROM A CASE?

ANS: $ judge may not be legally prohibited

from sitting in litigation. ,ut when

suggestion is made of record that he mightbe induced to act in fa(or of one party or

with bias or prejudice against a litigant

arising out of circumstance reasonably

capable of inciting such a state of mind) heshould conduct a careful self0e7amination.



CASE: (PIMENTEL V. SALONGA GR

NO. 2!"3# SEPTEMBER1$ 1"%!&

*e should e7ercise his discretion in a

way that people1s faith in the courts of

justice is not impaired. $ salutary norm isthat he reflects on the probability that a

losing party might nurture at the bac8 of

his mind the thought that the judge had

unmeritoriously tilted the scales of

justice against him.



SECTION #

SEC. 9. 'udges shall not 8nowingly)while a proceeding is before or

could come before them) ma8e any

comment that might reasonably bee7pected to affect the outcome of

such proceeding or impair the

manifest fairness of the process.or shall judges ma8e any comment

in public or otherwise that might

affect the fair trial of any person or

issue.



SECTION '

'udges shall dis6ualify themsel(es

from participating in any proceedings in

which they are unable to decide the

matter impartially or in which it mayappear to a reasonable obser(er that

they are unable to decide the matter

impartially. Such proceedings include)but are not limited to) instances where



;a< The judge has actual bias

or prejudice concerning a

party or personal 8nowledgeof disputed e(identiary facts

concerning the proceedings!



;b< The judge pre(iously

ser(ed as a lawyer or was amaterial witness in the matter in

contro(ersy!



;c< The judge) or a member of his

or her family) has an economic

interest in the outcome of thematter in contro(ersy!



OCT=,#E %S. %E$SCO$ municipal judge who filed complaints in his own

court for robbery and malicious mischief against aparty for the purpose o f protecting the property

interests of the judge1s co0heirs) and then issued

warrants of arrest against the party) was found guilty

of serious misconduct and ordered dismissed fromthe bench before he was able to rescue himself. The

SC held that 3his subse6uent inhibition from the cases

which he filed in his own court does not detract from

his culpability for he should ha(e not ta8en

cogni2ance of the cases in the first place0the e(il thatthe rule on dis6ualification see8s to pre(ent is the

denial o a party of his right to due process.5



;d< The judge ser(ed as e7ecutor)administrator) guardian) trustee or

lawyer in the case or matter in

contro(ersy) or a former associateof the judge ser(ed as counsel

during their association) or the

judge or lawyer was a materialwitness therein!



;e< The judge1s ruling in a lower

court is the subject of re(iew!

;f< The judge is related byconsanguinity or affinity to a party

litigant within the si7th ci(il degree or

to counsel within the fourth ci(ildegree! or



;g< The judge 8nows that his or her

spouse or child has a financial

interest) as heir) legatee) creditor)

fiduciary) or otherwise) in the

subject matter in contro(ersy or in a

party to the proceeding) or any otherinterest that could be substantially

affected by the outcome of the

proceedings!



WHEN SHOULD THE JUDGE INHIBIT FROM THE CASE?



ANS: $ judge should inhibit from a case:

a. +here the judge can be associated with eitherof the parties or their counsel!

b. +here the judge has prior personal 8nowledge

about the facts of the case!

c. +here the judge is biased or partial! and

d. +here the judge is related to the party0litigant

or the counsel



SHOULD A JUDGE INHIBIT BECAUSE OF CLOSE PERSONAL

FRIENDSHIP WITH ONE OF THE PARTIES?



ANS: o. Close personal

friendship is not a ground for

inhibition. $s long as thatfriendly relations with a party0

litigant does not influence hisofficial conduct as a judge.



Santos (. 'udge

acurom) $.4. o.#T'0>90?@AB) $ugust

A@) A>>.



There must be con(incing proof that

the judge ga(e undue pri(ileges inhis court to his close friend) or that

his close friend benefited from his

personal relations with respondent judge) or that respondent judge

used his influence) if any) to fa(or

his close friend.



SEC. . $ judge dis6ualified as stated

abo(e may) instead of withdrawing from

the proceeding) disclose on the recordsthe basis of dis6ualification. If) based on

such disclosure) the parties and lawyers)

independently of the judge1s participation)all agree in writing that the reason for the

inhibition is immaterial or unsubstantial)

the judge may then participate in theproceeding. The agreement) signed by all

parties and lawyers) shall be incorporated

in the record of the proceedings. ;#ule

B.?B Canon B ?@



3#E4ITT$ ODISF$=IIC$TIO5



GROUND FOR

DISQUALIFICATION: YES OR NO

The 'udge is a ne7t0door

neighbor of thecomplainant.

O



GROUND FOR


4ere di(ergence of opinion

between a judge and a party1s

counsel as to applicable law and jurisprudence.

O



GROUND FOR


#easons of strained

relationship) animosity and

hostility between a judge and aparty.

O



WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DISQUALIFICATION AND

INHIBITION?



ANS: As to the grounds:

The #ules enumerated the specific and

e7clusi(e grounds under which any judge or judicial officer is dis6ualified

from acting as such while it does not

e7pressly enumerate the specific

grounds for inhibition but merely gi(es abroader basis thereof.



As to the application of judicial discretion:

In dis6ualification) the judicial

officer has no discretion to try orsit in a case while in inhibition) the

judge may e7ercise his sound

discretion whether to try the caseor not.



T*$G /O=H

F=IH F=IH F=IH

impartiality (rules of court)

Documents