This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2000-04-06 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| The assumption to office by a judge casts upon him duties and restrictions peculiar to his exalted position.[9] He is the visible representation of law and of justice.[10] His official conduct in and outside court is to be held invariably free from impropriety or, even alone, an appearance thereof.[11] Respondent judge may not have been urged by ulterior motives in writing to complainant concerning the compromise agreement in a case pending before his court; nevertheless, being hardly, a normal thing to do, his actuation can easily be misunderstood or can put to doubt even his own impartiality on the matter before. him. If, indeed, there have been efforts towards a compromise agreement, the judge could have made an official inquiry thereof, not through a private letter, but in open court or in a court order with copies thereof being furnished to all parties. It is not right for a judge to discard the accepted rudiments of court procedures.[12] In order to avoid suspicions of wrongdoing, a respect for traditional and prevailing rules must be observed and kept constantly in mind. A judge should, in fine, administer his office with due regard to the integrity of the judicial system. He must not be perceived as being a repository of arbitrary power[13] but as one dispensing justice under the sanction of the rule of law. Misact | |||||