Office of the Court Administrator v.
Floro
AM No. RTJ - 99 -1460, March 31, 2006
Facts:
• It was in 1995 that Atty. Florentino V. Floro, Jr. first applied for judgeship – A pre-requisite
psychological evaluation on him then by the Supreme Court Clinic Services (SC Clinic) re-
vealed evidence of ego disintegration and developing psychotic process.
• Judge Floro later voluntarily withdrew his application.
• In June 1998, when he applied anew, the required psychological evaluation exposed problems
with self-esteem, mood swings, confusion, social/interpersonal deficits, paranoid ideations,
suspiciousness, and perceptual distortions.
• Both 1995 and 1998 reports concluded that Atty. Floro was unfit to be a judge – Because of his
impressive academic background, however, the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) allowed Atty.
Floro to seek a second opinion from private practitioners.
• After conducting the audit, Court Administrator, Alfredo L. Benipayo, who submitted his own
report/memorandum to then Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. recommending that his report
be considered as an administrative complaint against Judge Floro and that Judge Floro be sub-
jected to an appropriate psychological or mental examination. Benipayo recommended as well
that Judge Floro be placed under preventive suspension for the duration of the investigation
against him.
• One of those reported is for his alleged partiality in criminal cases where he declares that he is
pro-accused which is contrary to Canon 2, Rule 2.01, Canons of Judicial Conduct or Canon 3
of the New Code of Judicial Conduct. The audit team reported that Judge Floro relayed to the
members thereof that in criminal cases, he is always "pro-accused" particularly concerning de-
tention prisoners and bonded accused who have to continually pay for the premiums on their
bonds during the pendency of their cases.
• Judge Floro denied the foregoing charges.
• He submitted that there is no single evidence that he was pro-accused. However, during a staff
meeting, Judge Floro declared the same thing and added that his family members have experi-
enced detention.
Issue:
WON Judge Floro violated Canons 2 and 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct
Held:
Yes.
• Canon 2, Rule 2.02 of the Code of Judicial Conduct says in no uncertain terms that a judge
should not seek publicity for personal vainglory.
• A parallel proscription, this time for lawyers in general, is found in Rule 3.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility: a lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent,
misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding his
qualifications or legal services. This means that lawyers and judges alike, being limited by the
exacting standards of their profession, cannot debase the same by acting as if ordinary mer-
chants hawking their wares.
• As succinctly put by a leading authority in legal and judicial ethics, (i)f lawyers are prohibited
from x x x using or permitting the use of any undignified or self-laudatory statement regarding
their qualifications or legal services (Rule 3.01, Code of Professional Responsibility), with
more reasons should judges be prohibited from seeking publicity for vanity or self-glorifica-
tion. Judges are not actors or actresses or politicians, who thrive by publicity.
RULE 2.01 - A judge should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the in-
tegrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
o A judge whose duty is to apply the law and dispense justice should always be perceived as
impartial, independent, and honest
o By broadcasting to his staff, suspicion of his impartiality was awakened
Canon 3 - a judge should perform official duties honestly, and with impartiality and diligence
Objectivity is required of judges for an independent judiciary to be realized. By professing
bias, Judge Floro is guilty of unbecoming conduct, rendering the erosion of the public’s trust on
his ability to render justice
