The Importance of Judicial Decorum and Its Impact on Public Trust

Re: Anonymous Complaint Against Judge Laarni N. Dajao, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 27, Siocon, Zamboanga del Norte, A.M. No. RTJ-16-2456, March 02, 2020

Imagine entering a courtroom expecting justice, only to hear a judge use offensive language and make inappropriate comments. Such a scenario not only undermines the dignity of the court but also erodes public confidence in the judiciary. This was the situation in a recent case involving Judge Laarni N. Dajao, where an anonymous complaint led to a Supreme Court decision highlighting the critical need for judicial decorum.

In this case, Judge Dajao was accused of using vulgar language and making degrading remarks in his court orders. The central legal question revolved around whether such conduct violated the New Code of Judicial Conduct, specifically Sections 1 and 2 of Canon 4, which emphasize propriety and the appearance of propriety in all judicial activities.

Understanding Judicial Propriety and Conduct

Judges in the Philippines are bound by the New Code of Judicial Conduct, which sets out the ethical standards they must uphold. Sections 1 and 2 of Canon 4 state:

Propriety and the appearance of propriety are essential to the performance of all the activities of a judge. Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their activities. As a subject of constant public scrutiny, judges must accept personal restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly. In particular, judges shall conduct themselves in a way that is consistent with the dignity of the judicial office.

These provisions aim to ensure that judges maintain the highest standards of behavior, both in and out of the courtroom. The term ‘impropriety’ refers to any action or language that is inappropriate or unbecoming of a judicial officer. For instance, using offensive language or making personal attacks in court orders can be considered impropriety, as it detracts from the judge’s role as an impartial arbiter of justice.

In everyday situations, these principles mean that judges must be mindful of their words and actions, as they are constantly under public scrutiny. For example, if a judge were to use derogatory terms during a trial, it could not only affect the outcome of the case but also damage the public’s perception of the judiciary as a whole.

The Case of Judge Laarni N. Dajao

The case against Judge Dajao began with an anonymous letter-complaint dated January 15, 2014, which accused him of unprofessional conduct. The complaint cited specific instances of vulgar language used in an order dated November 27, 2013, where Judge Dajao referred to individuals as “idiot,” “psychopath,” and used phrases like “big dick/penis” and “homophobic baklita.” Additionally, the complaint criticized Judge Dajao for adding “Dr.” and “Ph.D.” to his name in court documents, suggesting an attempt to seek personal publicity.

Judge Dajao responded to the complaint by arguing that it was intended to malign him and that the cases mentioned in the order were dismissed without prejudice. However, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found him administratively liable for vulgar and unbecoming conduct, recommending a fine of Five Thousand Pesos (Php 5,000.00) and a stern warning.

The Supreme Court, in its ruling, adopted the OCA’s findings and emphasized the importance of judicial temperament. The Court stated:

In the present case, insulting and insensitive language used by Judge Dajao in the Order he issued such as ‘idiot’, ‘psychopath’, ‘big dick (penis)’, ‘sadistic’, and ‘homophobic baklita’ is a language not befitting a judge. It must be emphasized that judges are enjoined to always be temperate, patient and courteous both in conduct and language.

The Court also addressed Judge Dajao’s use of academic titles, noting that it constituted self-promotion and vanity, which is prohibited under Canon 2, Rule 2.02 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

The procedural journey of this case involved an initial complaint, a response from Judge Dajao, an OCA report and recommendation, and finally, a Supreme Court resolution. The key procedural steps were:

• Receipt of the anonymous complaint
• Submission of Judge Dajao’s comment
• OCA’s investigation and report
• Supreme Court’s adoption of OCA’s findings and imposition of a fine

Practical Implications for the Judiciary

This ruling serves as a reminder to all judicial officers of the importance of maintaining decorum and propriety. It underscores that any deviation from expected judicial behavior can lead to disciplinary action, which in turn affects the public’s trust in the judiciary.

For lawyers and litigants, this case highlights the need to report any instances of judicial misconduct. It also emphasizes the importance of judges adhering to ethical standards to ensure fair and respectful treatment in court.

Key Lessons:

• Judges must always maintain a high standard of conduct and language to uphold the dignity of the court.
• Self-promotion and vanity have no place in judicial proceedings and can lead to disciplinary action.
• Public confidence in the judiciary is paramount and can be easily undermined by improper judicial behavior.

Frequently Asked Questions

What constitutes vulgar and unbecoming conduct for a judge?

Vulgar and unbecoming conduct includes using offensive language, making derogatory remarks, or engaging in behavior that is inconsistent with the dignity of the judicial office.

Can a judge be disciplined for using academic titles in court documents?

Yes, if the use of such titles is seen as an attempt at self-promotion or vanity, it can lead to disciplinary action, as it violates the Code of Judicial Conduct.

How can the public report judicial misconduct?

The public can file complaints with the Office of the Court Administrator or directly with the Supreme Court, providing detailed accounts of the alleged misconduct.

What are the possible consequences for a judge found guilty of vulgar conduct?

Consequences can range from a fine, as in this case, to more severe disciplinary actions such as suspension or dismissal, depending on the severity of the misconduct.

How does judicial misconduct affect public trust?

Judicial misconduct can significantly erode public trust by undermining the perception of the judiciary as a fair and impartial institution.

ASG Law specializes in judicial ethics and professional conduct. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.