Scribd
Upload
32 views1 page

Upload 3

The document discusses an administrative case against a respondent. The court found the respondent guilty of violating multiple Canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary related to public statements made during a pending case. The respondent was reprimanded as a penalty.

Uploaded by

Genelle Mae Madrigal
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
32 views1 page

Upload 3

The document discusses an administrative case against a respondent. The court found the respondent guilty of violating multiple Canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary related to public statements made during a pending case. The respondent was reprimanded as a penalty.

Uploaded by

Genelle Mae Madrigal
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

DGDJD’;WQ YUQWFJ FK

was whether the respondent can be held administratively liable for her actions and public statements as regards the quo
warranto cause against her during pendency. The court found that the respondent was guilty of violating Canon 13, Rule
Case 13.02, and Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, Section 3, 7 and 8 of Canon 1, Sections 1 and 2 of
Canon 2. Sections 2 and 4 of Canon 3, and Sections 2 and 6 of Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the
Philippine Judiciary; and was meted the penalty of reprimand, in l\

FHFGEDF;WQF J F

You might also like