Source: Manila Bulletin Online

Batangas IBP hits reports discrediting judge and justice
spacer

The Batangas chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) has passed a resolution “expressing indignation on the apparent malicious imputations aimed at Hon. Maria Cecilia I. Austria, presiding judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 2, Batangas City, and Hon. Sixto C. Marella, Justice, Court of Appeals.”

The resolution stated that a report (not the Bulletin’s) entitled “Female Batangas Judge Wants to Meet Pals in Friendster Account” was published in the Feb. 29, 2008 issue of a daily newspaper.

Another article of similar import entitled “Sexy Pose ng Lady Judge Binuking sa Friendster” was likewise published in the Feb. 29, 2008 issue of a daily Tagalog newspaper.

The IBP Batangas chapter said that the “articles obviously have no purpose other than to discredit Judge Maria Cecilia I. Austria and Justice Sixto C. Marella, 1991-1993 president of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Batangas Chapter, and to place them in a bad light to advance vested interests through the power of print media where Judge Chua and Justice Marella could not defend themselves and where the damage caused probably could not be appropriately rectified.”

It also said that “both magistrates are held in high esteem in our legal community, have exhibited impartiality, independence, probity and courage in the delivery of justice regardless of private influence and have acted and carried themselves decently and, therefore, are the exact opposites of what the conspirators of the published articles would wish them to be depicted by the reading public.”

The resolution stated that the Batangas IBP chapter “expresses, in strongest possible term, its indignation on the apparent malicious imputations published in the two newspapers apparently without any purpose but to discredit Hon. Maria Cecilia I. Austria, presiding Judge Regional Trial Court, Branch 2, Batangas City, and Hon. Sixto C. Marella, Justice of the Court of Appeals, and place them in a bad light to advance the vested interest of certain groups.”

A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING INDIGNATION ON THE APPARENT MALICIOUS IMPUTATIONS AIMED AT HO. MARIA CECILIA I. AUSTRIA, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 2, BATANGAS CITY AND HON. SIXTO C. MARELLA, JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEALS

WHEREAS, an article entitle “Female Batangas Judge Wants to Meet Pals in Firendster Account” was published in the February 29, 2008 issue of the Philippine Star.

WHEREAS, another article of similar import entitled “Sexy Pose ng Lady Judge Binuking sa Friendster” was likewise published in the February 29, 2008 issue of People’s Taliba.

WHEREAS, said articles obviously, have no purpose other than to discredit JUDGE MARIA CECILIA I. AUSTRIA and JUSTICE SIXTO C. MARELLA, 1991-1993 President of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Batangas Chapter, and to place them in a bad light to advance vested interests through the power of print media where Judge (Austria) and Justice Marella could not defend themselves and where the damage caused probably could not be appropriately rectified.

WHEREAS, both magistrates are held in high esteem in our legal community, have exhibited impartiality, independence, probity and courage in the delivery of justice regardless of private influence and have acted and carried themselves decently and therefore, are the exact opposites of what the conspirators of the published articles would wish to be depicted by the reading public.

NOW THEREFORE RESOLVED AS IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Batangas Chapter EXPRESS AS IT HEREBY EXPRESSES IN STRONGEST POSSIBLE TERMS, ITS INDIGNATION on the apparent malicious imputations published in the Philippine Star and People’s Taliba apparently without any purpose but the discredit HON. MARIA CECILIA I. AUSTRIA, Presiding Judge, Regional Tiral Court, Branch 2, BAtangas City and HON> SIXTO C. MARELLA, Justice of the Court of Appeals, and place them I a bad light to advance vested interest of certain groups.

UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED this 7th day of March 2008 during the Board Meeting held at the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Batangas Chapter Legal Aid Center.

GREGORIO R. MORALEJA, JR. GLEN P. MENDOZA
(Chapter President) (Vice-President)

ERWIN . AGUILERA EDWIN . AGUIRRE
(Secretary) (Treasurer)

ARTHUR G. FAMATIGAN AMIEL RAYMON O. PARGAS
(PRO) (Auditor)

TRIVEN P. CASTILLO LOIDA C. CONTI
(Director) (Director)

EDNA C. DEL ROSARIO GILBERT L. MACATANGAY
(Director) (Director)

NEIL ADRIAN B. PARGAS VICENTE BERNARDO V. MAYO, JR.
(Director) (Ex-oficio Director)

hoi magtrabaho na lang kayo tama yung isang poster dyan PERA NG MGA TAO NA NAGBABAYAD NG BUWIS ANG IPINANGSUSWELDO SA INYO….

CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT

PREAMBLE

An honorable competent and independent judiciary exists to administer justice and thus promote the unity of the country, the stability of government, and the well-being of the people.

CANON 1

A JUDGE SHOULD UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY
AND INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY

RULE 1.01 - A judge should be the embodiment of competence, integrity and independence.

RULE 1.02 - A judge should administer justice impartially and without delay.

RULE 1.03. - A judge should be vigilant against any attempt to subvert the independence of the judiciary and should forthwith resist any pressure from whatever source intended to influence the performance of official functions.

CANON 2

A JUDGE SHOULD AVOID IMPROPRIETY
AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY
IN ALL ACTIVITIES

RULE 2.01 - A judge should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.chan robles virtual law library

RULE 2.02 - A judge should not seek publicity for personal vainglory.

RULE 2.03 - A judge shall not allow family, social, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. The prestige of judicial office shall not be used or lent to advance the private interests of others, nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge.

RULE 2.04 - A judge should refrain from influencing in any manner the outcome of litigation or dispute pending before another court or administrative agency.

CANON 3

A JUDGE SHOULD PERFORM OFFICIAL
DUTIES HONESTLY, AND WITH IMPARTIALITY
AND DILIGENCE

ADJUDICATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES

RULE 3.01 - A judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence.

RULE 3.02 - In every case, a judge shall endeavor diligently to ascertain the facts and the applicable law unswayed by partisan interests, public opinion or fear of criticism.

RULE 3.03 - A judge shall maintain order and proper decorum in the court.

RULE 3.04 - A judge should be patient, attentive, and courteous to lawyers, especially the inexperienced, to litigants, witnesses, and others appearing before the court. A judge should avoid unconsciously falling into the attitude of mind that the litigants are made for the courts, instead of the courts for the litigants.

RULE 3.05 - A judge shall dispose of the court’s business promptly and decide cases within the required periods.

RULE 3.06 - While a judge may, to promote justice, prevent waste of time or clear up some obscurity, properly intervene in the presentation of evidence during the trial, it should always be borne in mind that undue interference may prevent the proper presentation of the cause or the ascertainment of truth.

RULE 3.07 - A judge should abstain from making public comments on any pending or impending case and should require similar restraint on the part of court personnel.

ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES

RULE 3.08 - A judge should diligently discharge administrative responsibilities, maintain professional competence in court management, and facilitate the performance of the administrative functions or other judges and court personnel.

RULE 3.09 - A judge should organize and supervise the court personnel to ensure the prompt and efficient dispatch of business, and require at all times the observance of high standards of public service and fidelity.

RULE 3.10 - A judge should take or initiate appropriate disciplinary measures against lawyers or court personnel for unprofessional conduct of which the judge may have become aware.

RULE 3.11 - A judge should appoint commissioners, receivers, trustees, guardians, administrators and others strictly on the basis of merit and qualifications, avoiding nepotism and favoritism. Unless otherwise allowed by law, the same criteria should be observed in recommending appointment of court personnel. Where the payment of compensation is allowed, it should be reasonable and commensurate with the fair value of services rendered.

DISQUALIFICATION
.
RULE 3.12 - A judge should take no part in a proceeding where the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. These cases include among others, proceedings where:

(a) the judge has personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;

(b) the judge served as executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or lawyer in the case or matter in controversy, or a former associate of the judge served as counsel during their association, or the judge or lawyer was a material witness therein;

(c) the judge’s ruling in a lower court is the subject of review;

(d) the judge is related by consanguinity or affinity to a party litigant within the sixth degree or to counsel within the fourth degree;

(e) the judge knows the judge’s spouse or child has a financial interest, as heir, legatee, creditor, fiduciary, or otherwise, in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.

In every instance, the judge shall indicate the legal reason for inhibition.

REMITTAL OF DISQUALIFICATION

RULE 3.13 - A judge disqualified by the terms of rule 3.12 may, instead of withdrawing from the proceeding, disclose on the record the basis of disqualification. If, bases on such disclosure, the parties and lawyers independently of judge’s participation, all agree in writing that the reason for the inhibition is immaterial or insubstantial, the judge may then participate in the proceeding. The agreement, signed by all parties and lawyers, shall be incorporated in the record of the proceeding.

CANON 5

A JUDGE SHOULD REGULATE EXTRA-JUDICIAL
ACTIVITIES TO MINIMIZE THE RISK
OF CONFLICT WITH JUDICIAL DUTIES

ADVOCATIONAL, CIVIC AND CHARITABLE ACTIVITIES

RULE 5.01 - A judge may engage in the following activities provided that they do not interfere with the performance of judicial duties or detract from the dignity of the court:

(a) write, teach and speak on non-legal subjects;

(b) engage in the arts, sports, and other special recreational activities;

(c) participate in civic and charitable activities;

(d) serve as an officer, director, trustee, or non-legal advisor of a non-profit or non-political educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization.

FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES
chan robles virtual law library
RULE 5.02 - A judge shall refrain from financial and business dealing that tend to reflect adversely on the court’s impartiality, interfere with the proper performance of judicial activities or increase involvement with lawyers or persons likely to come before the court. A judge should so manage investments and other financial interests as to minimize the number of cases giving grounds for disqualifications.

RULE 5.03 - Subject to the provisions of the proceeding rule, a judge may hold and manage investments but should not serve as officer, director, manager or advisor, or employee of any business except as director of a family business of the judge.

RULE 5.04 - A judge or any immediate member of the family shall not accept a gift, bequest, factor or loan from any one except as may be allowed by law.

RULE 5.05 - No information acquired in a judicial capacity shall be sued or disclosed by a judge in any financial dealing or for any other purpose not related to judicial activities.

FIDUCIARY ACTIVITIES

RULE 5.06 - A judge should not serve as the executor, administrator, trustee, guardian, or other fiduciary, except for the estate, trusts, or person of a member of the immediate family, and then only if such service will not interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties. “Member of immediate family” shall be limited to the spouse and relatives within the second degree of consanguinity. As a family, a judge shall not:

(a) serve in proceedings that might come before the court of said judge; or

(b) act as such contrary to rules 5.02 to 5.05.

PRACTICE OF LAW AND OTHER PROFESSION

RULE 5.07 - A judge shall not engage in the private practice of law. Unless prohibited by the Constitution or law, a judge may engage in the practice of any other profession provided that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with judicial functions.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE

RULE 5.08 - A judge shall make full financial disclosure as required by law.
RULE 5.09 - A judge shall not accept appointment or designation to any agency performing quasi-judicial or administrative functions.

POLITICAL ACTIVITIES
chan robles virtual law library
RULE 5.10 - A judge is entitled to entertain personal views on political questions. But to avoid suspicion of political partisanship, a judge shall not make political speeches, contribute to party funds, publicly endorse candidates for political office or participate in other partisan political activities.
.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT
chan robles virtual law library
All judges shall strictly comply with this Code.

DATE OF EFFECTIVITY

This Code, promulgated on 5 September 1989, shall take effect on 20 October 1989

dapat nga mga congressmen na yan, they should post their spending, finances, assets, and sources of income through friendster…maybe this will be a better venue for transparency! geeez!

her position and stature limits her

“Limits” as used here is a verb, not a noun.

CONCLUSION: The Judge is hot, but she cannot and should not have public Friendster account… account on Friendster exposes the judge to influence and pressure… her position and stature limits her to what she can do on the Internet.

Pasensya na po pero medyo na-ta-tangahan ako dito sa conclusion mo po. Statutory limits ba kamo? Tapos sa internet pa? Sa internet, na information highway ng freedom of expression and ideas? Are you serious? Or are you seriously joking?

Pwede nating tirahin si judge sa allegedly pakikipag-connive niya with the two banks pero huwag na natin pansinin pa yung pictures niya sa Friendster account niya, dyusmiho naman.

Mag a-ala Abalos na lang ako: “Ano ba naman iyan?!” Hahahaha!