PART I IV (A) In a case for homicide filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Presiding Judge Quintero issued an order for the arrest of the accused, granted a motion for the reduction of bail, and set the date for the arraignment of the accused. Subsequently, Judge Quintero inhibited himself from the case, alleging that even before the case was raffled to his court, he already had personal knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the case. Is Judge Quintero’s inhibition justified? Answer: Yes. New Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 5, Sec 3 (a) provides: Judges shall disqualify themselves from participating in any proceedings in which they are unable to decide the matter impartially or in which it may appear to a reasonable observer 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 knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceedings; In this case, Judge Quintero had personal knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the case, therefore his inhibition is justified.
(B) After being diagnosed with stress dermatitis, Judge Rosalind, without seeking permission from the Supreme Court, refused to wear her robe during court proceedings. When her attention was called, she explained that whenever she wears her robe she is reminded of her heavy caseload, thus making her tense. This, in turn, triggers the outbreak of skin rashes. Is Judge Rosalind justified in not wearing her judicial robe? Explain. Answer: No. Under Administrative Circular No. 25, provides: “Pursuant to Sections 5 and 6, Article [VIII] of the Constitution and in order to heighten public consciousness on the solemnity of judicial proceedings, all Presiding Judges of all Trial Courts shall wear black robes during sessions of their respective Court.” In this case, Judge Rosalind’s non-wearing of her robe due to her medical condition
is not excusable. To be exempt from non-wearing of robe, she must first secure a Court’s permission. She cannot simply exempt from complying with requirement.
V Cliff and Greta were law school sweethearts. Cliff became a lawyer, but Greta dropped out. One day, Cliff asked Greta to sign a marriage contract. The following day, Cliff showed Greta the document already signed by an alleged solemnizing officer and two witnesses. Cliff then told Greta that they were already married and Greta consented to go on a honeymoon. Thereafter, the couple cohabited and begot a child. Two years later, Cliff left Greta and married a Venezuelan beauty. Incensed, Greta filed a disbarment complaint against Cliff. Will the case prosper? Explain. Answer: Yes. Under the prevailing jurisprudence, a lawyer who deceived a woman to believe that they were already married after they had signed an application for marriage license, and afterwards took advantage of her belief to satisfy his lust, until she bore him a child, was considered by the Supreme Court to be a ground of disbarment. He failed to maintain the highest degree of morality and integrity which at all times is expected of, and must be possessed by, members of the Bar.
