This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2007-08-01 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| "Whether a lawyer's sexual congress with a woman not his wife or without the benefit of marriage should be characterized as 'grossly immoral conduct' depends on the surrounding circumstances."[35] The case at bar involves a relationship between a married lawyer and a married woman who is not his wife. It is immaterial whether the affair was carried out discreetly. Apropos is the following pronouncement of this Court in Vitug v. Rongcal:[36] | |||||
|
2003-08-04 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| Respondent Escritor testified that when she entered the judiciary in 1999,[8] she was already a widow, her husband having died in 1998.[9] She admitted that she has been living with Luciano Quilapio, Jr. without the benefit of marriage for twenty years and that they have a son. But as a member of the religious sect known as the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Watch Tower and Bible Tract Society, their conjugal arrangement is in conformity with their religious beliefs. In fact, after ten years of living together, she executed on July 28, 1991 a "Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness," viz:DECLARATION OF PLEDGING FAITHFULNESS | |||||
|
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] | |||||