Sunteți pe pagina 1din 15

NEW CODE OF JUDICIAL

CONDUCT
PERFORMANCE OF DUTIES

18.10 A JUDGE SHOULD BE A MAN OF


LEARNING The court has not been remised in reminding judges to exert diligent efforts in keeping abreast with developments in jurisprudence. Needless to state, the process of learning the law and legal system is a never-ending endeavor, hence, judges should always be vigilant in their quest for knowledge so they could discharge their duties and responsibilities with zeal and fervor

18.11 A JUDGE SHOULD BE A VISIBLE


REPRESENTATION OF LAW AND JUSTICE Examples of misbehavior of a Judge Acceptance of bribe Holding office and conducting hearings at his residence Falsification of Daily Time Record Guilty of Sexual Harassment More

18.12 FITTING DIGNITY AND DECORUM


A judge should show no shortness of temper which merely which merely detracts from the equanimity and judiciousness that should be the constant marks of a dispenser of justice. He should be temperate and patient.

18.13 ATTITUDE TOWARD LAWYERS,


LITIGANTS OR WITNESSES A Judge should be COURTEOUS to everyone especially to those COUNSELS who are YOUNG and INEXPERIENCE He must be CONSIDERATE of witnesses and others in attendance upon his court. He must be STUDIOUS to avoid controversies to avoid obscure the merits of the dispute between litigants and lead to its unjust disposition.

18.14 JUDGE SHOULD NOT RESORT TO


INTEMPERATE LANGUAGE

An overspeaking judge is no well-tuned cymbal

18.14 JUDGE SHOULD NOT RESORT TO


INTEMPERATE LANGUAGE The duty to maintain respect for dignity of the court applies to members of the bar and bench alike. A judge should be courteous both in his conduct and in his language especially to those appearing before him. He can hold counsels to a proper appreciation of their duties to the court, to the clients, and the public without being petty, arbitrary, overbearing, or tyrannical. He should restrain from conduct that demeans his office and remember always that courtesy begets courtesy. Above all, he must conduct himself in such a manner that he gives no reason for reproach.

18.15 QUESTIONING WITNESSES


A trial Judge may ask clarificatory questions of a witness: In any case, a severe examination by trial judge of some of the witnesses for the defense in an effort to develop the truth and to get at the real facts affords no justification for a charge that he has assisted the prosecution with an evident desire to secure a conviction, or that he had intimidated the witnesses for the defense. The trial judge must be accorded a reasonable leeway in putting such questions to witnesses as may be essential to elicit relevant facts to make the record speak the truth.

18.15 QUESTIONING WITNESSES


Trial judges are judges of both law and the facts and they would be negligent in the performance of duties if they permitted a miscarriage of justice as a result of a failure to propound a proper question to a witness which might develop some material bearing upon the outcome. A judge may examine or cross-examine a witness. He may profound clarificatory questions to test the credibility of the witness and extract the truth. He may seek to draw out relevant and material testimony though that testimony may tend to support or rebut the position taken by one or the other party. It cannot be taken against him if the calrificatory questions he profounds happen to reveal certain truths which tend to destroy the theory of one party.

18.16 UNDUE INTERFERENCE IN QUESTIONING


WITNESSES

18. 17 COMPULSORY DISQUALIFICATION OF A


JUDGE Sec. 1. Disqualification of judges. - No judge or
judicial officer shall sit in any case in which he, or his wife or child, is pecuniarily interested as heir, legatee, creditor or otherwise, or in which he is related to either party within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity, or to counsel within the fourth degree, computed according to the rules of the civil law, or in which he has been executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or counsel, or in which he has presided in any inferior court when his ruling or decision is the subject of review, without the written consent of all parties in interest, signed by them and entered upon the record.
A judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion, disqualify himself from sitting in a case, for just or valid reasons other than those mentioned above.

CASE OF COMPULSORY DISQUALIFICATION

The law conclusively presumes that a judge cannot objectively or impartially sit in a case and prohibits him and strikes at his authority to hear and decide it, in the absence of written consent of all parties concerned.

IF A JUDGE CONTINUES WITH THE CASE WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF ALL THE PARTIES EFFECTS:
1.

2.

The judge is deprived of his authority to continue to hear and decide the case. A judge who continues to hear a case in which he is disqualified under any of those enumerated grounds may be held administratively liable for, except where all parties concerned have given their written consent thereto.

18.18 VOLUNTARY DISQUALIFICATION


He should conduct a careful self examination That passion on the part of the judge may be generated because of serious charges of misconduct against him by suitor or his counsel

CASE OF VOLUNTARY INHIBITION

The law leaves to the judge to decide for himself the question as to whether he will desist from sitting in a case for other just and valid reasons with only his conscience to guide him unless he cannot discern for himself his inability into meet the test of the cold neutrality required of him in which event the appellate court will see to it that he disqualify himself.