This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2001-06-26 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| It is clear from the aforesaid provisions that both the reality and the appearance must concur. Case law repeatedly teaches that judicial office circumscribes the personal conduct of a judge and imposes a number of restrictions thereon, which he has to pay for accepting and occupying an exalted position in the administration of justice.[34] The improper conduct of a judge erodes public confidence in the judiciary.[35] It is thus the duty of the members of the bench to avoid any impression of impropriety to protect the image and integrity of the judiciary.[36] | |||||