CANON 13 Austria v.

Masaquel While it is true that respondent Judge may not be compelled to disqualify himself, the fact that Atty. Sicat, admittedly his former associate, was counsel for a party in the case being tried by him, may constitute a just or valid reason for him to voluntarily inhibit himself from hearing the case on a retrial, if he so decides. Due process of law requires a hearing before an impartial and disinterested tribunal, and that every litigant is entitled to nothing less than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge. Moreover, second only to the duty of rendering a just decision, is the duty of doing it in a manner that will not arouse any suspicion as to its fairness and the integrity of the Judge. Consequently, we take it to be the true intention of the law stated in general terms that no judge shall preside in a case in which he is not wholly free, disinterested, impartial and independent A judge cannot prevent any person even a litigant or counsel in a case before him to entertain in his mind an opinion about him as a judge. Baustista v. Rebueno The judge must maintain and preserve the trust and faith of the parties. He must hold himself above reproach and suspicion. At the very first sign of lack of faith and trust to his actions, whether well grounded or not, the judge has no other alternative but inhibit himself from the case. A judge may not be legally prohibited from sitting in litigation, but when circumstances appear that will induce doubt to his honest actuations and probity in favor of either party, or incite such state of mind; he should conduct a careful self-examination. He should exercise his discretion in a way that the peoples faith in the Courts of Justice is not impaired. Cruz v. Salva Members of the court were greatly disturbed and annoyed by such sensationalism brought by Salva in publicizing the investigation of the crime. In this, he committed a grievous error and poor judgment. It is bad enough to have such undue publicity when a criminal case is being investigated by the authorities, even when it is being tried in court; but when publicity is encouraged when the case is on appeal and is pending consideration by the court, the whole thing becomes inexcusable, even abhorrent. Nestle Philippines, Inc. v. Sanchez Grievances, if any, must be ventilated through the proper channels in keeping with the respect due to the Courts as impartial administrators of justice entitled to proceed to the disposition of its business in an orderly manner, free from outside interference obstructive of its functions and tending to embarrass the administration of justice. For it is a traditional conviction of civilized society everywhere that courts and juries, in the decision of issues of fact and law should be immune from every extraneous influence; that facts should be decided upon evidence produced in court; and that the determination of such facts should be uninfluenced by bias, prejudice or sympathies. In re: Gomez Litigants and lawyers should not be held to too strict an account for words said in the heat of the moment, because of chagrin at losing cases, and that the big way is for the court to condone even contemptuous language. The rule in the more progressive jurisdictions is, that courts, when a case is finished, are subject to the same criticism as other people. In re: Abistado Newspaper publications tending to impede, obstruct, embarrass or influence the courts in administering justice in a pending suit or proceeding constitute criminal contempt. That the constitutional guaranty of freedom of speech and press must be protected in its fullest extent, but license or abuse of liberty of the press and of the citizen should not be confused with liberty in its true sense; that as important as is the maintenance of an unmuzzled press and the free exercise of the rights of the citizen is the maintenance of the independence of the judiciary.

That the courts must be permitted to proceed with the disposition of their business in an orderly manner free from outside interfered obstructive of their constitutional functions. US v. Bustos A public officer must not be too thin-skinned with reference to comment upon his official acts. Of course, criticism does not authorize defamation. The guaranties of free speech and a free press include the right to criticize judicial conduct. The administration of law is wisely or badly enforced, is, therefore, a fit subject for proper comment. If the people cannot criticize a justice of the peace or a judge the same as any other public officer, public opinion will be effectively muzzled. Attempted terrorization of public opinion on the part of the judiciary would be tyranny of the basest resort. CANON 14 People v. Solis The appellants contend that they were deprived of due process for failure of the trial court to afford them the right to be defended by a lawyer of their own choice. This contention is devoid of factual basis. If they were indeed sincere in their desire to secure the services of a lawyer of their own choice, that period of 10 months was more than sufficient for them to do so. Besides, during the proceedings a quo, appellants never informed the trial court of their desire to be defended by a lawyer of their own choice; neither did they protest the appointment or the actuations of their counsel de oficio. People v. Daeng The court should be cautioned in frequently appointing the same attorney as counsel de officio for two basic reasons: first, it is unfair to the attorney concerned, considering the burden of his regular practice that he should be saddled with too many de officio cases; and second, the compensation provided by the rules of court might be considered by some lawyers as a regular source of income, something which the rule does not envision. Gonzales v. Chavez The Solicitor Generals withdrawal of appearance on behalf of the PCGG was beyond the scope of his authority in the management of a case. As a public official, it is his sworn duty to provide legal services to the government, particularly represent in litigation. And such duty may be enjoined upon him by the writ of mandamus. Such order however, should not be construed to mean that his discretion in the handling of his cases may be interfered with. The Court is not compelling him to act in a particular way. Rather, the Court is directing him to prevent a failure of justice resulting from his abandonment in midstream of the cause of the PCGG and the republic and ultimately, of the Filipino people. (in this case, OSG represented the party but in the middle of the trial, he resigned himself as the counsel of the Party) Republic v. CA OGCC (office of the government corporate counsel) cannot represent Sugar Regulatory Administration (SRA) since the latter is not a GOCC. The office of the Government Corporate Counsel shall act as the principal law office of all GOCC, their subsidiaries, other corporate offsprings and govt acquired asset corporations and shall exercise control and supervision over all legal departments or divisions maintained separately and such powers and functions as are now or may hereafter be provided by law.