CANON 5 -EQUALITYENSURING EQUALITY OF TREATMENT TO ALLBEFORE THE COURTS IS ESSENTIAL TO THEDUE PERFORMANCE OF THE JUDICIALOFFICE.

Note: A judge must be able to render substantial justice and maintain public confidence in the judicial system, by being aware of the diversity in society. With that awareness, a judge should not yield to first impression, reach hasty conclusions or prejudge matters. (Castillo v. Judge Juan, 62 SCRA 124)

Sec. 1,Canon 5,NCJC: Judges shall be aware of and understand diversity in society and differences arising from various sources, including, but not limited to, race, color, sex, religion, national origin, caste, disability, age, marital status, sexual orientation, social and economic status, and other like causes.

Q: What is the reason for this rule?

A: To render substantial justice and maintain public confidence in the judicial system, judges are expected to be aware of the diversity in society that results from an increased worldwide exchange of people and ideas.

Note: Judges should be mindful of the various international instruments and treaties ratified by the Philippines, which affirm the equality of all human beings and establish a norm of non-discrimination without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.

Judges should not yield to first impression, reach hasty conclusions or prejudge matters. They have a duty to ensure that the minority status of a party plays no part in their decisions.

Sec. 2, Canon 5, NCJC: Judges shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct, manifest bias or prejudice towards any person or group on irrelevant grounds.

Note: Magistrates of law must comport themselves at all times in such a manner that their conduct, can withstand the highest level of public scrutiny.

Judges should avoid private remarks, hasty conclusions, or distasteful jokes that may give even erroneous impressions of prejudice and lead the public to believe that cases before them are being prejudged.

Sec. 3, Canon 5, NCJC: Judges shall carry out judicial duties with appropriate consideration for all persons, such as the parties, witnesses, lawyers, court staff and judicial colleagues, without differentiation on any irrelevant ground, immaterial to the proper performance of such duties.

Note: As arbiters of the law, judges should be conscientious, studious, courteous, patient and punctual in the discharge of their judicial duties,recognizing that time of litigants, witnesses andcounsel is of value.Judges should act with decorum toward jurors, parties, court staff, spectators, and alike.

Q: Judge Tormis made a comment in a certain case to the effect that the same should be dismissed as the act complained of was already decriminalized by a special law. Thereafter, Judge Navarro, who previously handled the case before he was appointed as a judge, barged into the office of Judge Tormis telling to the staff that their judge does not know her law. Judge Tormis then retaliated by saying that to her, the office of Judge Navarro does not exist. Are the judges guilty of conduct unbecoming of a judge?

A: Yes. Judges, being dispensers of justice should not act in a way that would cast suspicion in order to preserve faith in the administration of justice. They should so behave to avoid poor public impression on the judiciary. Here, the judges act of fighting each other by uttering derogatory remarks against each other is a conduct unbecoming of a judge for which they should be disciplined as their fight has impaired the image of the judiciary. (Navarro v. Tormis, A.M. No. MTJ-00-1337, Apr. 27, 2004)

Q: Atty. Quinto was the defense counsel in a criminal case. In his verified complaint, he alleged that during the hearing, he manifested that he was waiving the presentation of evidence for the accused. Judge Vios then allegedly got angry, shouted and scolded him, stating that the defense had no right to waive the presentation of evidence. He did not even listen to Atty. Quintos explanation and, thereafter, compelled the latter to withdraw his appearance as counsel of the accused, under pain of contempt. In the presence of thecomplainant, Judge Vios appointed a counsel de officio. May Judge Vios be held administratively liable for compelling the lawyer to withdraw as counsel for the accused under pain of contempt?

A: Yes. 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. Here, the judge should be held liable for misconduct when he threatened to punish complainant for contempt of court if he would refuse to withdraw his appearance, as counsel for the accused, when the latter insisted on waiving the presentation of the evidence for the defense. (Atty. Quinto v. Judge Vios, A.M. No. MTJ-04- 1551, May 21, 2004)

Note: Unequal and disparate treatment in the courthouse, whether intentional or perceived, is unacceptable and can negatively impact the professional lives of attorneys and employees, the assessment of claims of litigants, and the respect and credibility of the justice system.

Sec. 4, Canon 5, NCJC: Judges shall not knowingly permit court staff or others subject to his or her influence, direction or control to differentiate between persons concerned, in a matter before the judge, on any irrelevant ground.

Q: What are the duties of judges under thissection?

A: 1. To ensure that court personnel under their supervision do not discriminate by dispensing special favors or disclosing confidential information to any unauthorized person, regardless of whether such information came from authorized or unauthorized sources; and

2. To organize their courts to ensure the prompt and convenient dispatch of business and should not tolerate misconduct by clerks, sheriffs and other assistants who are sometimes prone to expect favors or special treatment due to their professional relationship with the judge.

Note: All personnel involved in the dispensation of justice should conduct themselves with a high degree of responsibility. (Mataga v. Rosete, A.M. No. MTJ-03-1488, Oct. 13, 2004)

Sec. 5, Canon 5, NCJC: Judges shall require lawyers in proceedings before the court to refrain from manifesting, by words or conduct, bias or prejudice based on irrelevant grounds, except such as are legally relevant to an issue in proceedings and may be the subject of legitimate advocacy.

Note: Judges should conduct proceedings in court with dignity and in a manner that reflects the importance and seriousness of proceedings. They should maintain order and proper decorum in the court. (Rule 3.03, Canon 3, 1989 Code of Judicial Conduct) Judges have the duty to prevent lawyers from abusing witnesses with unfair treatment. As courts are expected to ensure equality, any lawyer who makes an insensitive or demeaning comment in court should be admonished.

Q: During the hearing of a case for statutory rape filed against X, the lawyer is asking the 6- year-old victim to relate exactly and step by step the sexual intercourse between her and the accused. The lawyer is also asking questions whether at the time of the alleged rape, the accuseds penis is hard, and whether at the time they were caught, the accused was still pushing and pulling his penis inside her vagina. Should the judge allow such questions?

A: No. The judge shall require lawyers to refrain from making abusive and uncalled for queries. Here, the fact that the victim of rape is a child of tender years, there is more reason to require the lawyer to be tactful. No woman especially child of tender years would exactly remember step by step the sexual intercourse in the hands of the maniacal beast. Hence, all the questions asked are excessive. (People v. Boras, G.R. No. 127495, Dec. 22, 2000)

Note: This line of questioning may be relevant if the aggrieved party is an adult but not to a child. The Rule on the examination of a child witness (A.M. No. 004-07-SC) protects children so that developmentally appropriate questions can only be asked.