This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2002-07-31 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| duty,[13] which circumstance is absent in this case. Pursuant to Section 52, Rule IV of the Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 19, series of 1999, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service is classified as a grave administrative offense punishable by suspension of six (6) months and 1 day to one (1) | |||||
|
2001-12-14 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Respondent's intimate relationship with a woman other than his wife shows his moral indifference to the opinion of the good and respectable members of the community.[38] A judge, in order to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, must behave with propriety at all times, in the performance of his judicial duties and in his everyday life. No position exacts a greater demand on moral righteousness and uprightness of an individual than a seat in the judiciary.[39] Canon 3 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics solemnly mandates that the judge's official conduct should be free from the appearance of impropriety and his personal behavior, not only upon the bench and the performance of judicial duties but also in his everyday life, should be beyond reproach.[40] Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides that a judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities. Thus, respondent judge failed to live up to the exacting standards of judicial conduct and integrity. "For the judicial office circumscribes the personal conduct of a judge and imposes a number of restrictions thereon, which he has to observe faithfully as the price he has to pay for accepting and occupying an exalted position in the administration of justice." [41] | |||||
|
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] | |||||
|
2000-03-14 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Jurisprudence under the Civil Code states that no judicial decree is necessary in order to establish the nullity of a marriage.[24] "A void marriage does not require a judicial decree to restore the parties to their original rights or to make the marriage void but though no sentence of avoidance be absolutely necessary, yet as well for the sake of good order of society as for the peace of mind of all concerned, it is expedient that the nullity of the marriage should be ascertained and declared by the decree of a court of competent jurisdiction."[25] "Under ordinary circumstances, the effect of a void marriage, so far as concerns the conferring of legal rights upon the parties, is as though no marriage had ever taken place. And therefore, being good for no legal purpose, its invalidity can be maintained in any proceeding in which the fact of marriage may be material, either direct or collateral, in any civil court between any parties at any time, whether before or after the death of either or both the husband and the wife, and upon mere proof of the facts rendering such marriage void, it will be disregarded or treated as non-existent by the courts." It is not like a voidable marriage which cannot be collaterally attacked except in direct proceeding instituted during the lifetime of the parties so that on the death of either, the marriage cannot be impeached, and is made good ab initio.[26] But Article 40 of the Family Code expressly provides that there must be a judicial declaration of the nullity of a previous marriage, though void, before a party can enter into a second marriage[27] and such absolute nullity can be based only on a final judgment to that effect.[28] For the same reason, the law makes either the action or defense for the declaration of absolute nullity of marriage imprescriptible.[29] Corollarily, if the death of either party would extinguish the cause of action or the ground for defense, then the same cannot be considered imprescriptible. | |||||