Below is a comprehensive, straight-to-the-point discussion of the legal framework and guidelines governing judges who wish to teach under the 2004 New Code of Judicial Conduct (particularly Canon 4 on Propriety) and the specific rules set forth in A.M. No. 13-05-05-SC as implemented by OCA Circular No. 218-2019. This synthesis focuses on the conditions and limitations placed upon members of the Philippine judiciary who engage in teaching to maintain integrity, independence, impartiality, and propriety.

1. Overview of Canon 4 (Propriety) under the 2004 New Code of Judicial Conduct

Core Principle
Canon 4 of the 2004 New Code of Judicial Conduct underscores that judges must always uphold and exhibit propriety—both in their official conduct and in their personal and extrajudicial activities. Propriety refers to observing the highest standard of behavior that promotes public confidence in the judiciary.
Substantive Mandate
- Judges must avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all their activities.
- They should maintain dignity in judicial office, even in their personal pursuits, such that their conduct does not diminish public trust in the judiciary.
Relevance to Extrajudicial Activities
- While judges are not prohibited from engaging in extrajudicial activities—such as writing, teaching, speaking engagements, or civic work—Canon 4 emphasizes that these must not conflict with the fundamental principles of integrity, independence, impartiality, and diligence required of the judiciary.
- Any extrajudicial activity must not interfere with judicial duties or cast doubt on the judge’s capacity to be impartial.

2. A.M. No. 13-05-05-SC: Guidelines for Judges to Teach

A.M. No. 13-05-05-SC (implemented by OCA Circular No. 218-2019) was promulgated by the Supreme Court to clarify the conditions under which judges may engage in teaching. Below are the key points:

Primary Rule: Permission or Authority to Teach
- Judges must secure authority or permission from the Supreme Court (through the Office of the Court Administrator, “OCA”) before accepting any teaching position.
- This permission is necessary to ensure that the teaching commitment does not impede judicial duties and does not violate any code provisions.
Scope of Teaching Engagement
- The issuance covers all teaching activities—whether in law schools, review centers, bar review classes, MCLE (Mandatory Continuing Legal Education) seminars, or other academic or training institutions.
- It also includes both online and in-person classes and extends to lectures in symposiums, conferences, or workshops that go beyond sporadic “guest-speaking” invitations.
Limitations on Teaching Hours
- Judges must ensure that their teaching schedule is compatible with the performance of their judicial functions.
- Although A.M. No. 13-05-05-SC does not provide a rigid numerical cap on teaching hours, OCA Circular No. 218-2019 and related issuances often emphasize that the time spent on teaching should not conflict with or diminish the time allocated for judicial work (court sessions, resolution of cases, legal research, writing decisions, etc.).
- Judges may be required to disclose their proposed teaching schedule to demonstrate that they can still fulfill all judicial responsibilities without undue delay.
Compliance with Work Schedules and Court Sessions
- Teaching must not hamper or delay the disposal of cases.
- Judges are strictly prohibited from holding classes or engaging in teaching-related activities during hours that conflict with official court sessions and other judicial responsibilities.
- If teaching is done on a weekday, it must be scheduled outside court hours (e.g., after 5:00 p.m.) or on weekends—unless the Supreme Court or OCA expressly approves a special arrangement.
Avoidance of Conflict of Interest and Impropriety
- Judges must avoid entering into teaching agreements or engagements that may give rise to a conflict of interest or the appearance thereof.
- Potential conflicts include teaching in institutions closely associated with litigants who regularly appear before the judge’s court, or teaching subject matters that directly impinge on ongoing cases in the judge’s sala.
- Judges must avoid using their judicial position to attract students or participants, or to create any impression of favoritism or special advantage.
Prohibition of Commercial Exploitation
- Judges cannot use their teaching position to solicit business, clients, or to earn disproportionate compensation that might undermine the dignity of judicial office.
- Any compensation received for teaching should be reasonable and proportionate to standard academic or lecture rates.
Mandatory Reporting and Monitoring
- Judges typically must submit a report or request in writing to the OCA indicating:
  - The name of the educational institution or event sponsor.
  - The exact subjects, schedule, and number of hours of teaching or lectures.
  - The compensation or allowance, if any.
- The OCA may periodically review whether the teaching engagement is affecting the performance of judicial duties.
Sanctions for Non-Compliance
- A judge who engages in teaching without the requisite permission, who fails to comply with mandatory disclosures, or who neglects judicial duties because of teaching may be subject to disciplinary action.
- Violations can range from admonition to suspension or other penalties, depending on the gravity of the infraction and any actual prejudice caused to court operations or litigants’ rights.

3. Rationale Behind the Conditions

Preservation of Judicial Integrity
- The judiciary’s credibility rests on public trust that judges resolve disputes with impartiality and dedication. Extrajudicial engagements, including teaching, must not erode this trust.
- By requiring official clearance, the Court ensures that teaching does not compromise judicial integrity or create any undue advantage or conflict of interest.
Protection of Litigants’ Rights
- Litigants and their counsel must be assured that the judge’s focus remains on promptly and impartially adjudicating cases. The teaching load must not lead to delays in hearings, resolution, or decision-making.
Promoting Continuing Legal Education
- Despite the restrictions, the Court recognizes that allowing judges to teach also enhances legal education. Judges bring valuable practical insights and experiences to law students, bar reviewees, and practitioners.
- The guidelines balance this benefit with the need to preserve the core obligations of the judicial role.
Avoiding Commercialization of Judicial Office
- The conditions protect against scenarios where a judge could improperly benefit from commercial or financial arrangements tied to the prestige of judicial office.
- Transparency in reporting and approval processes helps maintain public confidence that teaching roles are purely academic and professional, without hidden profit motives.

4. Interaction with Other Canons and Guidelines

Canon 1 (Independence) and Canon 2 (Integrity)
- Any extrajudicial activity, including teaching, must be undertaken in a manner consistent with judicial independence and integrity. Judges must neither compromise nor appear to compromise these foundational virtues.
Canon 3 (Impartiality)
- Judges should not teach in a manner that publicly expresses partiality toward certain legal theories or indicates how they may decide ongoing or potential controversies in their courts.
Canon 6 (Competence and Diligence)
- A judge’s competence and diligence require the timely disposition of cases. Accepting a teaching post that results in backlogs or undue delay would violate this canon.
Other Supreme Court Circulars and Administrative Issuances
- Over time, additional circulars (like OCA Circular No. 218-2019) or memoranda may clarify permissible teaching loads, compensation ceilings, or submission of periodic reports. Judges are duty-bound to keep abreast of and comply with these.

5. Practical Considerations for Judges Who Wish to Teach

Secure Written Approval
- Before committing to teach, a judge must submit a formal request to the OCA with the necessary information on teaching load and schedule.
Adjust Court Schedules Responsibly
- Judges should ensure that court calendars are not disrupted by teaching obligations. Any scheduling changes must not unduly inconvenience litigants, witnesses, or lawyers.
Maintain Transparency
- Proactively disclose the nature of one’s teaching engagements to relevant court administrators. Transparency prevents misunderstandings or allegations of wrongdoing.
Stay within Ethical Boundaries
- Avoid discussing pending or impending cases in teaching sessions.
- Do not use the classroom to comment on parties, lawyers, or issues that might come before the court.
Be Mindful of Public Perception
- Even if no actual impropriety exists, judges must remain attentive to how the public perceives their dual role as educators and adjudicators.

6. Consequences of Non-Compliance

Administrative Discipline: Failure to follow the prescribed process or to adhere to the standards set out in A.M. No. 13-05-05-SC and OCA Circular No. 218-2019 can result in administrative sanctions against the judge.
Impairment of Judicial Efficiency: Excessive teaching commitments may lead to delays in case resolution, for which the judge can be held administratively liable (e.g., undue delay in rendering decisions).
Damage to Public Confidence: Ethical lapses or impropriety associated with teaching undermines the public trust reposed in the judiciary.

7. Key Takeaways

Teaching is Permitted but Regulated: The Supreme Court recognizes the value of judicial officers contributing to legal education but imposes strict oversight to prevent conflicts or neglect of judicial duties.
Compliance with Requirements: Judges must obtain prior approval, carefully schedule teaching hours, avoid conflicts of interest, and remain transparent about compensation and class arrangements.
Upholding Judicial Propriety: All teaching-related activities must reinforce the dignity of judicial office, consistent with the 2004 New Code of Judicial Conduct’s emphasis on independence, integrity, impartiality, propriety, equality, competence, and diligence.

Final Note

In sum, A.M. No. 13-05-05-SC (implemented by OCA Circular No. 218-2019) lays down clear, comprehensive rules for judges who seek to teach. Grounded in Canon 4 (Propriety) of the 2004 New Code of Judicial Conduct, these rules help safeguard the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary while allowing judges to share their expertise in legal academia. Proper adherence to these guidelines ensures that judges’ teaching engagements do not compromise their paramount duties to administer justice efficiently and maintain the highest ethical standards.