i. Mandatory vs. Voluntary Inhibition (See also Rule 137)

C. The New Code of Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary

• Independence, Integrity, Impartiality, Propriety, Equality, and Competence and Diligence
• Disqualification and Inhibition of Judicial Officers – Rule 137
• Discipline of Members, Officials, Employees and Personnel of the Judiciary under Rule 140, further amended by A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC

Independence, Integrity, Impartiality, Propriety, Equality, and Competence and Diligence

Grounds for Compulsory Disqualification of Judges

• He, or his wife or child, is pecuniarily interested as heir, legatee, creditor or otherwise;
• 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;
• He has been executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or counsel; or
• He has been presided in any inferior court when his ruling or decision is the subject of review. (Sec. 1, Rule 137, ROC)

In the case of compulsory disqualification, the law conclusively presumes that a judge cannot objectively or impartially sit in a case and, for that reason, prohibits him and strikes at his authority to hear and decide it, in the absence of written consent of all parties concerned. (Gutierrez v. Santos, 112 Phil. 184, 1961)

NOTE: The disqualification of the person called upon to preside over a specific case does not divest his court of jurisdiction over the subject-matter of or the persons of the parties to the said case. At most, the disqualification strikes only at the authority of the challenged judge to preside over the trial of the specific case and therein to exercise the jurisdiction of the court. (Geotina v. Gonzales, G.R. No. L-26310, 30 Sept. 1971)

Grounds for Compulsory Disqualification of Judicial Officers under the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary

• The judge has actual bias or prejudice concerning a party or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceedings;
• The judge previously served as a lawyer or was a material witness in the matter in controversy;
• The judge, or a member of his or her family, has an economic interest in the outcome of the matter in controversy;
• 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;
• The judge's ruling in a lower court is the subject of review;
• The judge is related by consanguinity or affinity to a party litigant within the sixth civil degree or to counsel within the fourth civil degree; or
• The judge is reThe judge knows that his or her 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 proceedings. (Sec. 5, Canon 3, A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC)

VOLUNTARY

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. (Sec. 1, Rule 137, Rules of Court)

Discipline of Members, Officials, Employees and Personnel of the Judiciary under Rule 140, further amended by A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC