Legal Insights
Plain-language guides and case briefs on Philippine law — researched from the firm's law library of 184,000+ statutes, Supreme Court decisions, and agency issuances, and written so non-lawyers can understand and act on them.
Get a cited, plain-language answer from 184,000+ statutes and decisions — free, no sign-up.
When Actions Speak Louder: Trust, Dishonesty, and Due Process in Employment Termination
A Supreme Court ruling on simple misconduct in the judiciary, explaining why good faith actions can still violate trust and lead to suspension.
Court Employees Must Avoid Even the Appearance of Impropriety: Balajadia v. Gatchalian
The Supreme Court fined a court stenographer P3,000 for simple misconduct after she hinted at a "commission" in exchange for faster work.
When Judges Overstep: The Cash Bond Rule and Simple Misconduct
A judge who personally received a cash bail bond violated Rule 114, but the Court ruled it was simple, not gross, misconduct.
Judicial Impartiality: Avoiding the Appearance of Impropriety in Judicial Conduct
A judge's private mediation between litigants in pending cases violates the Code of Judicial Conduct and constitutes simple misconduct.
Court Employee Misconduct: When Drunkenness at Work Means Simple Misconduct
A court aide who showed up drunk at the Palace of Justice was fined P5,000 for simple misconduct. Learn the rules on decorum for judiciary employees.
Simple Misconduct vs Grave Misconduct: Ethical Boundaries for Court Personnel in the Philippines
Philippine Supreme Court ruling on DTR falsification by court personnel clarifies grave misconduct penalties and mitigating circumstances.
Judicial Ethics: The Boundaries of Simple Misconduct for Judges in Philippine Law
A lawyer's unauthorized notarization and certification of documents leads to suspension, clarifying the limits of professional conduct.
Moral Conduct in Public Service: When Personal Lives Affect Professional Reputation
A Supreme Court administrative case shows how a court employee's unauthorized mediation and ignored requests led to a fine for simple misconduct and violations of R.A. No. 6713.