Land transportation and law enforcement officials to motor vehicle drivers: “Don’t text while driving.”

Supreme Court (SC) justices to judges: “Don’t text details of cases you are handling to party-litigants.”

Under Republic Act No. 10913, violators of the Anti-Distracted Driving Act, may be punished with fine of P5,000 for first offense; P10,000, second offense; P15,000 for third offense with three-month suspension of license; and P20,000 and revocation of driver’s license beyond the third offense.

Judges and other judiciary members who violate the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary can be reprimanded, suspended, fined, or dismissed from the service with forfeiture of retirement and other benefits, and banned from appointment to any public office.

In a resolution promulgated last March 17 and made public last May 18, the SC reprimanded Regional Trial Court (RTC) Judge Mario C. Duaves for discussing with a party in a case through mobile phone text messages the properties subject of a legal dispute in his court.

While adopting the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) that Duaves’ “impropriety” was a light charge, the SC issued a stern warning “that a repetition of the same act or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.”

Duaves was found to have violated Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary. Canon 4 states that “propriety and the appearance of propriety are essential to the performance of all the activities of a judge.”

He was charged by Melanio A. Prado Jr., counsel in an estate settlement case, with gross ignorance of the law, manifest partiality and bias, and serious misconduct.

One of Duaves’ alleged administrative infractions was “exchanging text messages with the parties on issues involving the properties in dispute.”

On Oct. 15, 2020, the OCA found that all the charges against Duaves, except the text exchanges with the parties, were unsupported by substantial evidence, hence bereft of any merit.

OCA said that the judge’s orders in the estate settlement case “were issued in the proper exercise of his judicial functions, and as such, are not subject to administrative disciplinary action, especially considering that complainant failed to establish bad faith or any malevolent motive on the part of respondent judge."

But OCA said that Judge Duaves is “guilty of violating Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct, which requires judges to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all their activities, when he communicated with the parties through text messages regarding matters pending before his court.”

Resolving the issue, the SC said:

“It is well-settled that an administrative complaint is not the appropriate remedy for every act of a judge deemed aberrant or irregular where a judicial remedy exists and is available.

“The acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action. A judge cannot be civilly, criminally, or administratively liable for his official acts, no matter how erroneous, provided he acts in good faith.

“Absent any showing that respondent acted in bad faith, his acts in the exercise of his judicial authority cannot be questioned in administrative disciplinary proceedings.

“The Court, accordingly, agrees with the OCA' s recommendation to dismiss the charges of gross ignorance of the law, manifest partiality and bias, and serious misconduct against respondent (Duaves).

“The Court likewise agrees with the OCA that respondent violated Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct.

“Respondent, by his own admission, exchanged text messages with the parties concerning properties subject of the dispute pending in his court.

“Respondent's act discloses a deficiency in prudence and discretion that a member of the Judiciary must exercise in the performance of his official functions and of his activities as a private individual.

“It is never trite to caution respondent to be prudent and circumspect in both speech and action, keeping in mind that conduct in and outside the courtroom is always under constant observation.

“As impropriety constitutes a light charge, the penalty of reprimand, as recommended by the OCA, is appropriate.”