Judicial Ethics: The Prohibition Against Judges Engaging in Private Legal Practice

A judge's role is to decide cases, not to argue them. When a judge crosses that line and acts as counsel for a litigant, the Supreme Court treats it not as a harmless favor but as a serious ethical breach. That is what happened in Tuzon v. Judge Loreto Cloribel-Purugganan (A.M. No. RTJ-01-1662, November 26, 2001), where a trial court judge was suspended and fined for filing a pleading on behalf of a party in a case that was reviewing her own order.

The facts of the case

Victor Tuzon filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, questioning an order issued by Judge Loreto Cloribel-Purugganan of the Regional Trial Court of Tuguegarao, Cagayan, Branch 3, in a civil case.

The Court of Appeals directed the private respondent, Raymundo Catral, to file a comment and to explain why injunctive relief should not be granted. Instead, the judge herself filed the comment — for Catral and for herself — and signed it.

Tuzon then filed an administrative complaint with the Supreme Court, alleging illegal practice of law, gross ignorance of the law, serious misconduct, bias, knowingly rendering an unjust judgment, and violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct. He also claimed the judge antedated a decision in another civil case.

The judge admitted writing and filing the comment. Her explanation: the counsel for Catral, Atty. Isidro Reyes, was sick and unable to work. She denied antedating any decision.

Why a judge should stay out of the fight

The Supreme Court reminded judges that when their order is challenged before an appellate court, they need not file an answer or take an active part in the proceedings unless the court expressly directs them to do so. It cited Turqueza v. Hernando, 97 SCRA 483 (1980), for this rule.

The reason is simple. A judge whose ruling is on review is a nominal party only. The judge has no personal stake in the outcome and must keep a detached attitude. Taking an active part in the litigation of her own official act undermines that detachment.

The Court also cited Section 5, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, which states that unless specifically directed by the court where the petition is pending, public respondents shall not appear in or file an answer or comment to the petition or any pleading in it.

Filing a pleading is private practice of law

The judge argued she only stepped in because the party's lawyer was ill. The Court rejected this justification.

It held that the practice of law is not limited to appearing in court. It includes preparing pleadings or papers in anticipation of litigation. Citing Dia-Anonuevo v. Bercacio, 68 SCRA 81 (1975), the Court found that by signing and filing a comment for one of the parties, the judge engaged in the private practice of law.

Two provisions make this clear:

• Section 35, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, which prohibits judges from engaging in private law practice.
• Rule 5.07 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which states that a judge shall not engage in the private practice of law.

The Court explained the public policy behind the ban: the rights, duties, privileges, and functions of an attorney-at-law are inherently incompatible with the high official functions, duties, powers, discretion, and privileges of a judge. It cited Gozun v. Liangco, 339 SCRA 253 (2000), and Carual v. Brusola, 317 SCRA 54 (1999).

The other charges were dismissed

The Court found no proof that the judge antedated her decision in the other civil case. It also found insufficient evidence for the charges of gross ignorance of the law, serious misconduct, evident bias and partiality, and knowingly rendering an unjust judgment. Those charges were dismissed.

The penalty

The Supreme Court found Judge Cloribel-Purugganan guilty of illegal practice of law, in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Revised Rules of Court. It imposed:

• Suspension from office for three months, without pay; and
• A fine of P10,000.00.

The Court warned that a repeat of the same or similar act would be dealt with more severely. The resolution was effective immediately.

Practical takeaways

• A judge whose order is challenged on appeal is a nominal party only. There is no need to file an answer or comment unless the appellate court expressly orders it.
• Filing a pleading for a litigant — even out of sympathy for a sick lawyer — is private practice of law and violates judicial ethics.
• The prohibition covers preparing pleadings and papers, not just appearing in court.
• A judge must stay detached from cases involving her own rulings; active participation compromises the appearance of impartiality.
• Violations carry real consequences, including suspension without pay and a fine.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.