[A.M. No.MTJ-98-1169.January 29, 2002]

CITY GOVERNMENT OF TAGBILARAN, represented by the City Administrator and Special Counsel,complainant,vs. JUDGE AGAPITO HONTANOSAS, JR., Presiding Judge of Branch 1, MTCC ofTagbilaranCity,respondent.

R E S O L U T I O N

DAVIDE, JR.,C.J.:

In a complaint filed on 29 May 1997 with the Office of the Court Administrator, complainant charges respondent JudgeAgapitoHontanosas, Jr., Presiding Judge, Branch 1, Municipal Trial Court in Cities,TagbilaranCity,*with (1) open defiance of a lawful order of a superior court directing respondents inhibition from a case; and (2) open, notorious, and habitual gambling in the casinos ofCebuand in the cockpits ofBohol.

On the first charge the complainant alleges as follows:

In two criminal cases filed by the City Government against BARBARA ONG, for her habitual refusal to pay the correct amount of amusement taxes, the City asked for the inhibition of JudgeHontanosas.Respondent refused to inhibit himself, so the City ofTagbilaranfiled a petition with the REGIONAL TRIAL COURT ofTagbilaranto compel inhibition.

The RTC Branch I issued an Order requiring JudgeHontanosasto relinquish the cases.Instead of obeying the order of the Superior Court, JudgeHontanosasforced the Fiscal to rest the case, even before the prosecution could cross-examine the defense witnesses.Thereafter, JudgeHontanosasrendered a judgment of ACQUITTAL in favor of BARBARA ONG and all her other co-accused.

Incidentally, BarbaraOngis the wife of the richest Chinese-Filipino businessman inBohol, FREDERICK ONG.

...

This is not IGNORANCE OF THE LAW.This is an open, premeditated and willful DEFIANCE OF THE LAW and all the accepted norms of judicial conduct.We can only surmise on the millions of reasons which motivated respondent JudgeHontanosasto act in such manner.If only the Bank Secrecy Law could be lifted, we would be able to determine the exact number of reasons behind the blatant, open, public, malicious, premeditated and despicable conduct which has completely eroded the publics perception of the judiciary inTagbilaranCity.

Anent the second ground, complainant alleges, thus:

It is a matter of common knowledge among lawyers inBoholand the general public inTagbilaranthat JudgeHontanosasgoes toCebuon the afternoon fast boat (90 minutes travel time) and comes back on the early trips fromCebutoTagbilaran.He does this 3 to 4 times a week.He goes to the Casinos inCebuand spends the whole night in the casinos, before going toCebupier to take the early trip back toTagbilaran, arriving inTagbilaranat6:00 a.m.or7:00 a.m.

Every Sunday, and in every so-calledDerbycockfights, JudgeHontanosasis seen in the cockpits ofTagbilaranand the nearby towns.

We have talked to several lawyers and litigants who have appeared before JudgeHontanosas, and they have informed us that for as little asP500 andP5,000, you can secure a decision in your favor.Surely, none of these litigants and lawyers will come out to testify against RespondentHontanosas.But we are stating this here in order to demonstrate the damage that JudgeHontanosashas done to the public perception of the judiciary inTagbilaranCity.

Complainant prays that the complaint be scheduled for formal investigation; that pending investigation respondent be suspended from office in view of the gravity of the charges; and that after investigation respondent be ordered removed from office and his name stricken off from the roll of attorneys.

The complaint was signed by Atty. Victor De la Serna, who designated himself as Special Counsel; and verified byArcadioSarmiento, City Administrator.

In a 1stIndorsementdated21 January 1998, then Court Administrator Alfredo L.Benipayorequired respondent to answer the complaint.

Respondent filed his Answer on10 March 1998.As to the first charge, he maintains that the aforementioned order of the RTC was unlawful for lack of due notice and hearing and for failure toimpleadthe real parties-in-interest; besides, the said order merely advised him to inhibit.Moreover, that order was issued in connection with a petition for certiorari which was a prohibited pleading, since the cases were covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure.As regards the second charge, he denies that he gambles in the casinos ofCebu, but admits that he would sometimes go toNivelHills Casino inCebuto accompany hiswife who want[ed] to have some excitement and recreation in said casino playing only the slot machines. He also admits that he goes to the cockpits during Sundays and holidays and evengamblea little on these occasions.

By way of affirmative defenses, respondent avers that the filing of the instant administrative complaint was purely an act of vengeance on the part of Atty. De la Serna for theformersverdict in Criminal Cases Nos. 7142 and 7143 which was unfavorable to the prosecution handled by the latter.Moreover, Atty. De la Serna had no legal authority to sign the complaint in behalf of the City Government ofTagbilaranbecause no resolution was ever passed creating said office and giving the Mayor the power to appoint a Special Counsel; under the Charter ofTagbilaranCity, it is the City Fiscal (now City Prosecutor) who is empowered to represent the City in all civil and criminal cases.

In its resolution of2 December 1998, the Court resolved to docket this case as a regular administrative matter and required the parties to inform the Court whether they were willing to submit this case for decision on the basis of the pleadings already filed.

Respondent answered in the affirmative in his Manifestation dated19 January 1999. On the other hand, Atty. De la Serna and Mr.Sarmiento, in a Manifestation dated21 January 1999, informed the Court that they were no longer interested in pursuing this case because they felt that it would be futile to spend any more time and effort and mailing cost on this case. The Court thereafter referred the latter Manifestation to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation and report.

In his Memorandum dated 12 November 2001, the new Court Administrator, JusticePresbiteroJ. Velasco, Jr., points out that the Court does not, as a matter of course, dismiss administrative complaints against members of the Bench on account of the withdrawal of the charges or desistance of the complainant from prosecuting the complaint; otherwise its disciplinary power may be put to naught, thereby undermining the trust character of a public office and impairing the integrity and dignity of the Court as a disciplining authority.On the merits of the case, the Court Administrator recommended that the first charge be dismissed not because of the desistance of the complainant but because of patent lack of merit for the following reasons:

1.The inhibition of respondent from subject criminal cases is not mandatory under the circumstances.Paragraph I of Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court provides the instances when a judge is under obligation to inhibit himself from sitting in a case. JudgeHontanosas case does not fall under any of those mentioned in said provision. His case therefore falls under the second paragraph of Section 1, Rule 137 which gives discretion to the judge whether or not to inhibit himself from a case, provided there are just or valid reasonstherefor.Thus, the Regional Trial Court cannot interfere with JudgeHontanosas exercise of his discretion.In this sense, therefore, the order of the RTC cannot be said to be lawful one which respondent is duty-bound to obey;

2.Plaintiffs Motion for Inhibition, on which the RTC Order is based, did not cite any reason or basistherefor.It merely stated: complainant and counsel does (sic) not believe that the Presiding Judge can be impartial and dispassionate in hearing and deciding this case. As to why themovantbelieves that JudgeHontanosascannot be impartial in the trial of this case, the motion did not say.It absolutely failed to raise any ground or justification for the call to inhibit;

3.Under Section 19(g) of the 1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, a petition for certiorari against any interlocutory order is a prohibited pleading.Hence, the RTC should not have taken cognizance of the petition for lack of jurisdiction.This fact further affects the legitimacy of the RTC Order being invoked by complainant;

4.Lastly, the subject Order neither required nor directed JudgeHontanosasto relinquish the subject cases.Thedispositiveportion of the Order specifically declared: IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATIONS, it is theopinionof this court that for respondent judge to hang on to hearing Criminal Case Nos. 7142 and 7143 against BarbaraOngis a step beyond the accepted norms of judicial conduct already.Respondent judge isadvisedto remand the cases to the Clerk of Court, xxx for assignment to Branch 2, MTCC,immediately.(Italics supplied). Clearly, aside from issuing a mereobiter dictum, the Order did not categorically impose upon JudgeHontanosasa duty to comply with the said order.

The Court Administrator, however, finds that for being present in casinos and for gambling in cockpits respondent Judge violated (1) Supreme Court Circular No. 4 dated 27 August 1980, which prohibits judges of inferior courts and court personnel from playing or being present in gambling casinos; and (2) Paragraph 3 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics, which requires that the judges official conduct and personal behavior be free from the appearance of impropriety.He then recommends that respondent Judge be directed to refrain from frequenting casinos, cockpits and other gambling places.

The Court agreesintotoon the above findings and recommendation on the first ground of the complaint.It partly agrees with the Court Administrator on the second ground.The Court cannot lend credence to respondents claim that he would sometimes go toNivelHills Casino inCebuto accompany his wife who want[ed] to have some excitement and recreation... playing only the slot machines. Slot machines are not placed in casinos for recreational purposes, but for gambling.A slot machine does not work unless a coin, which is the bet, is inserted into it.The Court finds it incredible for respondent to travel all the way fromTagbilaranCitytoCebuCityand spend his precious time just to watch his wife play the slot machines.If he did just that, respondent must have more than the patience of Job.It is fair and reasonable to conclude that respondent also gambled in the casino.

Circular No. 4 issued on27 August 1980by then Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando reads as follows:

The attention of the Court has been invited to the presence of some judges in gambling casinos operating under Presidential Decree No. 1067-B.This is clearlyviolativeof Section 5(3-b) of said Decree.It reads as follows:

(3-b) Persons not allowedto play-

(a)Government officials connected directly with the operation of the government or any of its agencies.

In accordance with law and pursuant to the Resolution of the Courten bancin Administrative Matter No. 1544-0, datedAugust 21, 1980, judges of inferior courts and the court personnel are enjoined from playing in or being present in gambling casinos.

Moreover, judges are likewise enjoined to keep in mind the Canons of Judicial Ethics, paragraph 3 of which provides:

3.Avoidance of appearance of impropriety.- - A judges official conduct should be free from the appearance of impropriety, and his personal behavior, not only upon the bench and in the performance of judicial duties, but also in his everyday life, should be beyond reproach. (Italics supplied)

The prohibition imposed by the Circular refers to both actual gambling and mere presence in gambling casinos.The bases for such prohibition are Section 5(3-b) of P.D. No. 1067-B; the Resolution of the Courten bancin Administrative Matter No. 1544-0 dated 21 August 1980; and Paragraph 3 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics.

Having earlier reached the conclusion that respondent gambled in a casino, we find him to have violated Section 5(3-b) of P.D. No. 1067-B.Such transgression is also a violation of Paragraph 22 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics, which provides: The judge should be studiously careful himself to avoid the slightest infraction of the law, lest it be a demoralizing example to others. Even grantingarguendothat respondent did not gamble or personally play the slot machine, his mere presence in a casino constituted a violation of Circular No. 4 and, more specifically, Paragraph 3 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics.

Respondent is also administratively liable for going to cockpits and placing bets in cockfights.The fact that the cockpits where he used to go were licensed and the cockfights were conducted on authorized days will not absolve him.While such gambling was not illegal, he openly and deliberately disregarded and violated Paragraph 3 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics quoted in Circular No. 4.Verily, it is plainly despicable to see a judge inside a cockpit and more so, to see him bet therein.Mixing with the crowd of cockfighting enthusiasts and bettors is unbecoming a judge and undoubtedly impairs the respect due him.Ultimately, the Judiciary itself sufferstherefrombecause a judge is a visible representation of the Judiciary.Most often, the public mind does not separate the judge from the Judiciary.In short, any demeaning act of a judge or court personnel demeans the institution he represents.

Hence, respondent deserves more than a directive to refrain from frequenting casinos, cockpits and other gambling places, as recommended by the Court Administrator.

Under the amended Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, a violation of a circular issued by this Court, such as Circular No. 4, is a less serious charge (Sec. 4.4), while gambling in public is a light charge (Sec. 5).If found guilty of a less serious charge the respondent may be punished with a penalty of fine of not less thanP10,000 but not exceedingP19,999 (Sec. 10-B.2); and for a light charge, he may be punished with a fine of not less thanP1,000 but not exceeding P9,999 (Sec. 10-C.1).All told, the Court may impose on respondent Judge a fine ofP12,000.

The imposition of the foregoing sanction does not put an end to this case.The Court must look into the act of Atty. Victor de la Serna in filing the complaint asspecial counseland in manifesting that he and City AdministratorArcadioSarmientowere no longer interested in pursuing this case because they felt that it would be futile to spend anymore time and effort and mailing cost on this case.

Atty. De La Serna failed to refute respondents affirmative defense that he had no legal authority to represent complainant City Government ofTagbilaranas its special counsel because theSangguniangPanglungsodofTagbilarandid not pass any resolution creating an office of Special Counsel and under the Charter of the City ofTagbilaranit is the City Prosecutor who is empowered to represent the city in all civil and criminal actions.

Even assuming that Atty. De La Serna had been duly authorized by the complainant to represent it in this complaint, he has to explain why he, with the City Administrator, filed the aforementioned manifestation, which in effect amounted to a withdrawal of the complaint without the consent of the complainant.

Moreover, the ground relied upon in the Manifestation appears prima facie to be an indictment against the capacity of this Court to render an impartial judgment in this case. As a lawyer, Atty. De la Serna is an officer of the court; as such, he should be the first to protect its integrity.

It must be stressed that Atty. De la Serna succeeded in making the charges in the complaint appear to be serious and grave by the strong language he used.He even imputed on respondent the commission of graft and corruption.A lawyer who makes such serious accusation must be prepared to prove it.He even owes it to the justice system, the public, and the legal profession to prove such accusation.

Atty. De la Serna should thus showcausewhy he should not be disciplined for the foregoing acts which, prima facie, amount to misconduct and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

WHEREFORE, the Court hereby Resolves to (a) DISMISS, for want of merit, the charge against respondent JudgeAgapitoL.Hontanosas, Jr., of open defiance of a lawful order of a superior court; and (b) IMPOSE upon him a FINE ofP12,000for violation of Circular No. 4 dated 27 August 1980 and, more specifically, for violation of Section 5(3-b) of P.D. No. 1067-B and Paragraphs 3 and 22 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics.He is STERNLY WARNED that the commission of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.

The Court further resolves to REQUIRE Atty. VICTOR DE LA SERNA to SHOW CAUSE, within ten (10) days from notice of this Resolution, why he should not be administratively sanctioned for misconduct or violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility for his aforementioned acts.

SO ORDERED.

[A.M. No. MTJ-98-1144.July 22, 1998]

FLORIDE DAWA, NORALIZ L. JORGENSEN, FEMENINA LAZARO-BARRETO,complainants, vs.Judge ARMANDO C. DE ASA, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 51, Caloocan City,respondent.

[A.M. No. MTJ-98-1148.July 22, 1998]

Clerk of Court MONA LISA A. BUENCAMINO,complainant,vs.Judge ARMANDO C. DE ASA Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 51, Caloocan City,respondent.

D E C I S I O N

PER CURIAM:

Armando C. de Asa, the presiding judge of Branch 51 and acting executive judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Caloocan City, was charged with sexual harassment and/or acts of lasciviousness in a letter-complaint[1]dated August 15, 1997, filed by Floride Dawa,[2]Feminina Lazaro-Barreto[3]and Noraliz L. Jorgensen.[4]In view of the allegations in the Complaint, this Court, in a Resolution dated December 10, 1997, placed respondent judge under preventive suspension; and referred the case to retired Justice Romulo S. Quimbo, a consultant of the Office of the Court Administrator, for investigation, report and recommendation.[5]

Meanwhile, Atty. Mona Lisa A. Buencamino,[6]who assisted the aforementioned complainants, also filed, on September 5, 1997, an affidavit-complaint[7]against Judge Armando C. de Asa, for sexual harassment under Republic Act No. 7877/acts of lasciviousness, grave or serious misconduct, and [for] violation [of] the high standard of moral[s] demanded by judicial ethics x x x.In our Resolution dated March 18, 1998,[8]we resolved to consolidate her Complaint with the earlier one and to refer it likewise to Justice Romulo S. Quimbo for inclusion in his investigation, report and recommendation.

After conducting a thorough investigation, the investigating officer submitted his Report, dated March 16, 1998, which contained the following exhaustive and detailed summary of the testimonies of the witnesses for both the complainants and the respondent:

1.Floride Y. Dawais a 24 year-old single girl employed as a stenographic reporter in Branch 52 of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC for brevity) of Caloocan City.She affirmed under oath the sworn statement (Exhibit A, Record, pp. 2-3 of the Record) she executed August 15, 1997.She related that on August 8, 1997, while on her way to the ladies toilet, she had seen respondent, Judge Armando C. de Asa, talking with a man at the backdoor of his chamber.Out of respect for respondent, being the Acting Executive Judge of the MeTC, she had nodded to him before entering the ladies comfort room.When she emerged from the same, she saw that respondent was still at the backdoor of his office although this time he was alone.Upon seeing Dawa, respondent casually asked her whether the toilet was clean.She answered that it was dirty.Respondent called her and she approached him.When she neared the respondent, the latter put his arm on her shoulder and led her into his chamber.Once inside and while she was standing near the edge of respondents office table, he placed his arm around her shoulder and suddenly held her jaw and kissed her on the lips.

Dawa was taken by surprise and was shocked by the act of the respondent.Before she could recover herself, respondent once again held her shoulder and chin and kissed her on lips.She forcibly pushed the respondent away.Respondent asked her where she lived and with whom but she hurriedly left respondents office.

Upon Dawas return to the staff room of Branch 52, Maria Teresa Carpio, who also works in Branch 52 asked her what the matter was because she noticed that Dawa looked dazed (tulala).She first said that nothing was the matter but upon [Carpios] insistent questioning, she haltingly related her harrowing experience in respondents office.

That same day, she related the incident to Judge Delfina Hernandez-Santiago, the presiding judge of Branch 52 who, although [she] was then on leave, had gone to her office on the invitation of Danilo Silverio, one of her coworkers in Branch 52, who was celebrating his birthday.Judge Santiago, after listening to Dawas story, advised her to go home and relate the incident to her parents before deciding to do anything further.Dawa went home but did not tell her parents who were sickly.Instead, she told her sister.

The next Tuesday (she had absented herself on Monday), Dawa went to see Atty. Mona Lisa Buencamino, the Clerk of Court, and related her story.She was told that she was not respondents first victim but that Noraliz Jorgensen and the Clerk of Court herself had been objects of respondents amorous advances.

Dawa saw Noraliz Jorgensen.The latter assured her that if Dawa would file a complaint, she would follow suit.

Dawa and Jorgensen decided to file charges against the respondent.Upon the advice of Atty. Buencamino, the two complainants saw Atty. Calalang, a city councilor.The latter advised them to go to the police and have their complaints entered in the police blotter.Calalang brought them to the office of Councilor Manlapig, a former police colonel.The latter called for a police investigator and SPO2 Rey Domingo came and interviewed them.That same afternoon, the two complainants went to the police station to have their complaints recorded in the police blotter (Exhibits 7 and 7-A; Record, pp. 16-17).

Dawa came to the Supreme Court with Atty. Buencamino, Noraliz Jorgensen and Femenina Lazaro-Barreto where they filed the letter-complaint (Exhibit X).

Respondent personally cross-examined Dawa.She insisted on her story although she admitted that respondent had gone to Branch 52 that same day.

2.Noraliz L. Jorgensenis 28 years old and married to a policeman.She affirmed under oath her sworn statement (Exhibit C, pp. 6-7 of the Record).The following is her story:

Jorgensen was and still is a casual employee in the Office of the Mayor of Caloocan City and detailed to the Office of the Clerk of Court, (OCC for short), MeTC, Caloocan City.Among her duties was the preparation and follow up of the payrolls for RATA and gasoline allowances of the Metropolitan Trial Judges.Upon the approval of said payrolls, it was her duty to receive the cash from the cashier and deliver them to the individual judges.

Sometime on January 3, 1997, at about 10:00 oclock in the morning, she had gone to the office of respondent Judge Armando C. de Asa, who presides Branch 51 of the Court, for the purpose of securing his signature on the payroll for the judges allowances.Upon entering the respondents office, the latter approached her and suddenly kissed her on the cheek.Jorgensen immediately left respondents office after having secured his signature on the payroll.

Again, on March 31, 1997, at about 2:00 oclock in the afternoon, Jorgensen had returned to the respondents office to deliver the cash representing his allowances for the months of January, February and March.Upon entering the respondents office, the latter immediately stood up, held her two arms, and suddenly kissed her and licked her left ear, saying I love you.Jorgensen was surprised and afraid.She asked respondent, Judge, what is this, at the same time endeavoring to free herself from his hold but she could not because his grip was strong.Respondent then said, Dont make noise lest we be heard outside.At the same time, respondent held her jaw and kissed her on lips.He said, Open your mouth as her continued to hug and kiss her while she tried to free herself.He did not heed her pleas although she was then trembling with fear.

On May 26, 1997, Jorgensen again entered respondents office to secure his signature on the payroll for June.Again he kissed her before he signed it.After he had signed the payroll, respondent invited Jorgensen to eat with him at the Max Restaurant on EDSA the next Saturday.When she asked him why he was inviting her, he answered, You are no longer a child, you ought to know.

Jorgensen could only cry.She asked Atty. Buencamino not to send her again to the respondent and she told Buencamino of what had happened to her.Atty. Buencamino told Jorgensen that if she wanted to complain, Buencamino would support her.Jorgensen was afraid that nothing would come out of any complaint because respondent was a Judge and powerful.

On August 4, 1997, having delivered the allowances of all judges except the respondent, Jorgensen tried to look for someone who could deliver the money to him but she could find no one.So she waited until she knew that someone else was inside respondents office.At about 3:00 oclock, while Roderick Corral was inside respondents office, she entered but respondent immediately threw to Corral the paper he had brought for his signature, in effect dismissing him.Corral immediately stepped out leaving Jorgensen alone in respondents chambers.When they were alone, respondent stood up and held Jorgensens jaw kissing her on her lips at the same time saying Open your mouth.Jorgensen immediately left respondents office in tears.

On August 8, 1997, Jorgensen learned that Floride Dawa, a stenographer in Branch 52, was the latest victim of the respondent.Jorgensen reported her experience to Judge Santiago, the Executive Judge, and she informed the good judge that she was ready to file a complaint against respondent in order to obtain justice.

Respondent personally cross examined Jorgensen who admitted that before August, 1997, she had gone to respondents office with Baby Mapue in response to his call and while there they were shown an anonymous letter (Exhibit 2) which mentioned [the] alleged misconduct on her part.

3.Femenina Lazaro-Barretois a thirty-year old married woman who is a Court Stenographer II in Branch 53 of the Caloocan City MeTC.During her direct examination by Atty. Roberto Abad, she identified her sworn statement (Exhibit E found on pp. 4-5 of the Record).

On July 22, 1997, she was assigned to Branch 51 because Judge Romanito Amatong of Branch 53 was on leave.While attending the session at Branch 51, respondent dictated an Order in open court.Her stenographic notes are found in Exhibit F.She transcribed these notes (Exhibits F-1) and left them with the Branch Clerk Gina Amatong.When she returned after lunch, Gina told her there were some corrections so she again typed and submitted Exhibit F-2.After typing one more draft (Exhibit F-3), she brought the final draft (Exhibit F-4) to respondents office for his signature.After respondent signed the Order, he stood up and while Barreto was looking at the Order, he held her chin and kissed her.Barreto asked, What are you doing?Respondent kissed her again and tapped her shoulder saying, Sigue na, Nina.Okay na, dismissing her.Barreto went out of the office and wiped her lips with her hand.Margo, a stenographer in Branch 51 saw her.She did not relate the incident to her husband but he learned about it from the newspapers.

4.Atty. Mona Lisa A. Buencaminois an unmarried forty-year-old lawyer who is presently the Clerk of Court of Caloocan City MeTC.Her first appointment was on June 18, 1987 as Branch Clerk of Court for Branch 51, presided by Judge Filemon Mendoza, now retired.After she became a lawyer in 1996, she was promoted to her present position as Clerk of Court.

Buencamino is acquainted with the three complainants.She first came to know Jorgensen when she assumed office as Clerk of Court because Jorgensen was detailed to her office.She had known Barreto since 1992 or 1993 and she personally came to know Dawa when the latter, accompanied by Jorgensen, approached her on August 12, 1997 and related her harrowing experience in the office of respondent.Jorgensen herself related similar experiences.Buencamino advised the two ladies that she would refer that matter to Judge Santiago, the executive judge, who was then on leave.She reasoned that being a woman and the executive judge, Judge Santiago would understand the complainants situation.Dawa and Jorgensen told Atty. Buencamino that they had already seen Judge Santiago and the latter had advised them to consult their families before taking any step.They further told the Clerk of Court that they had consulted their families and were decided to file an administrative case against respondent judge.At this juncture, sheriff Noli Calalang informed the complainants Dawa and Jorgensen that his brother, Councilor Gil Calalang, was willing to help them.

On August 13, 1997, at about 1:30 oclock in the afternoon, complainants Dawa and Jorgensen were advised that Atty. Gil Calalang was in his office.Buencamino and the two complainants proceeded to Calalangs office who, after hearing their stories, advised them to report the matter to the police.Atty. Calalang was willing to handle their case provided permission was obtained from Mayor Malonzo.Buencamino and the two complainants were brought to the office of Councilor Manlapig, a former police colonel, and there they were interviewed by SPO2 Santiago.The latter asked what cases could be filed against the judge and Atty. Buencamino answered that a case for violation of the new Anti-Sexual Harassment Law or for Acts of Lasciviousness under the Penal Code could be filed against respondent.At 5:30 oclock that same afternoon, Dawa and Jorgensen repaired to the Caloocan Police Station to have their complaints logged (Exhibits 7 and 7-A; Record; pp. 46-47).

On August 14, 1997, Feminina Lazaro-Barreto, accompanied by her sister, saw Atty. Buencamino and told her that she, too, was one of respondents victims.Ms. Barreto decided to file an administrative charge against respondent and requested David Maniquis, the deputy clerk of court, to accompany her to the police station to have her complaint recorded.(Exhibits 7-B and 7-C, Record, pp. 48-49).

Buencamino admitted that she had accompanied the three complainants to the Office of the Court Administrator to file the present case.Upon request of Atty. Perez of the Office of the Court Administrator, she had administered the oaths of the three complainants and had signed the original complaint.

5.Cielito M. Mapue,33 years old, married and employed as Clerk III, OCC, MeTC, Caloocan City, took the stand for the complainants to corroborate their testimonies.She declared that --

She was in charge of releasing the cash bonds to the bondsmen when they were no longer needed.In this connection, she had to prepare the vouchers and the breakdown of checks and she had to go to the office of the respondent in order to secure his signature.In 1997, she remembers having been requested once by Jorgensen to bring a payroll for the signature of respondent.After respondent signed the documents she had brought to him, respondent stood up, went around his table and abruptly kissed her.She immediately left with Emily Rose Clemente, staff member of Branch 51 and never again went to see respondent alone.Mapue admitted that she and Jorgensen had been called by respondent in relation to a complaint of Judge Santiago.Asked by respondent where he had kissed her, she retorted in the vernacular, Sa bibig, hindi mo ba natatanda-an?Made to explain why she had not complained, she answered that she did not want anyone to know.As a matter of fact, her husband did not know of the incident even as she was testifying.

6.Maria Teresa G. Carpio,37 years old, married, a casual employee of the City Mayors office and detailed to Branch 52 of the MeTC had the following to say:

She had known Floride Dawa to be a happy girl.On August 8, 1997, she was rather in good spirits because it was the birthday of one of their officemates and there was some sort of a party.At about 10:00 oclock that morning, Dawa had gone to the womens comfort room.When Dawa returned a few minutes later, Carpio noticed that she was pale and fidgety.She kept wringing her hands and was on the verge of tears.Carpio asked her what the matter was but Dawa answered that nothing was the matter.After some prodding, Carpio asked Dawa to go with her to the court room and there asked what really the matter was as she was no longer her gay self.Dawa cried and told the story of how the respondent had twice kissed her on the lips.

At lunch time, Judge Delfina H. Santiago, the presiding judge of Branch 52, came to join the birthday party.She was told by Esper Cabiling, another stenographer in Branch 52, that Floride Dawa wanted to see her in private.Judge Santiago brought Dawa to her private chambers.

On cross examination, Carpio admitted that respondent appeared at Branch 52 and asked if everything was okay, at which juncture, Dawa, accompanied by Rowena Martin, went to the courtroom.

7.David Maniquiz, deputy clerk of court, Caloocan City MeTC, declared that on August 14, 1997, he had been requested by Femenina L. Barreto, to accompany her to police headquarters to lodge a complaint against the respondent.Noli Calalang, Joselito Bedana, Noraliz Jorgensen and Floride Dawa were with them in the police station.

8.Ma. Victoria Soriano-Cruz, an interpreter in respondents court, was originally reluctant to testify.She, however, appeared in the afternoon of February 18, 1998, to give testimony.She declared that she knew the complaints and that she [was] directly under the respondent who preside[d] Branch 51.On August 12, 1997, she learned from others that Floride Dawa was kissed by the respondent.She also learned that Jorgensen had also been kissed by respondent.She admitted that the respondent has the inclination for imposing fines on employees who were late or made mistakes.She identified Exhibit G as an order where [sic] requiring her to pay a fine.

9.Judge Delfina Hernandez Santiagothe presiding judge of Branch 52, Metropolitan Trial Court of Caloocan City, was the last witness to testify for the complainants.The following is her story:

She had been sick and had been on leave since March of last year.For this reason, the respondent, who had been designated Vice Executive Judge, had to act in her stead.

Judge Santiago affirmed the contents of a verified eight-page letter (Exhibit I, I-1 to I-7; Record, pp. 17-24) which she had sent to the Court Administrator.This was submitted as her direct testimony.

In her letter, Judge Santiago stated that five ladies had unburdened themselves to her not only in her capacity as executive judge but because she was a woman.On Friday, August 8, 1997, she had gone to her office because she had been invited to lunch by birthday celebrants, Danilo Silverio and Esperancilla Kabiling.Upon her arrival, Ms. Kabiling had approached her and told her that Floride Dawa, one of her stenographers, urgently wanted to tell her something in confidence.Dawa entered the judges office red[-]eyed, red-faced and with a shiny nose.She kept clasping and unclasping her hands and could not stand still.She spoke in an incoherent and shaking voice which Judge Santiago could scarcely understand.She asked Dawa to sit down and compose herself.Dawa sat down and began to cry, so that her story could hardly be understood.Between sobs, the judge was able to piece out the fact that Dawa had been embraced and forcibly kissed twice on her lips by the respondent sometime that morning.

Dawa sought Judge Santiagos help to transfer to another court and she wanted her to talk to the respondent in order that the incident would not be repeated.Judge Santiago could not promise Dawa but she advised her to go home as she obviously was not herself.She further advised Dawa to think the matter over during the weekend and to talk to her parents about it.Judge Santiago promised to talk to Dawa again the next week.

After Dawa had left, Judge Santiago learned that Noraliz Jorgensen, a casual employee detailed to the OCC had had the same experience.To verify the truth, the judge went to the Office of the Clerk of Court and bluntly asked Noraliz Jorgensen whether it was true that she had been kissed by the respondent.Noraliz blushed and became red[-]eyed and told the judge of the several instances that the respondent had forcibly embraced and kissed her on the lips.

Judge Santiago sought out Judge Belen Ortiz who presides Branch 49.She related the stories of Dawa and Noraliz and asked Judge Ortiz whether she know of anyone from her branch who may have undergone the same experience.Judge Ortiz asked Jean Marie Lazo and the latter told them that there was one instance when she and Zenaida Reyes, another employee of the court, were seated on a bench near the door of their court and respondent sat between them and placed his arms on their shoulders and kissed them both on the cheeks.Jorgensen informed Judge Santiago that if Dawa would complain, she too would file a complaint.Judge Santiago advised her to seek the counsel of her parents and her husband and to see her again the next week.

In the afternoon of August 13, 1997, Femenina Lazaro-Barreto, a court stenographer in Branch 53, accompanied by her sister, Jean Marie, came to see Judge Santiago.Femenina confessed to Judge Santiago that she, too, had been kissed and embraced by the respondent twice.In between sobs and with her handkerchief almost torn to shreds by her shaking hands, she related how she had harbored her shame in silence and her guilt at not being able to tell her husband.

That same week, Atty. Mona Lisa Buencamino also related her own story to Judge Santiago how she was forcibly embraced and kissed on the lips by the respondent.

Mrs. Maria Victoria Cruz was the last one to tell Judge Santiago about the instances that the respondent had kissed her on her cheeks.Mrs. Cruz sought the assistance of Judge Santiago to transfer to another branch to escape the respondent."[9]

The investigating justice summarized the testimonies of respondents witnesses in this wise:

1.Arniel Apostol, is 38 years old, married and the sheriff in respondents branch.He affirmed the contents of his sworn statement (Exhibits 9 and 9-A; Record, pp. 56-57).He declared that he had been with the MeTC, Caloocan City, since 1980.In 1995, he was detailed to Branch 51 and later became its permanent sheriff.

In his sworn statement, Apostol declared that the respondent was an official who was faithful to his job.He observed office hours religiously.He was friendly and helpful to his personnel and was very approachable whenever they needed anything.The workers in his branch were free to enter his office, it being always open.It [was] not soundproof such that if anything improper happened inside, it could be heard outside.

Apostol further declared that since the respondent assumed office as judge, he had not heard of him being guilty of any improper conduct.On the other hand, he was the object of praise in his work even as a lawyer and as a fiscal.

Apostol continued saying he was surprised to learn that the respondent had been charged administratively by Nina (Femenina Barreto), Nora (Noraliz Jorgensen) and Flor (Floride Dawa) because he had not seen the respondent do anything indelicate to the three women.Whenever Nina came to Branch 51 to see the respondent, she would greet him with a Hello Judge, I am sexy now.On the other hand, whenever Noraliz brought in documents for respondents signature, she was always smiling going in and coming out of respondents office.Apostol declared that he had seen Floride Dawa go to respondents office only once and she was in company with other employees of Branch 52.

On cross examination, Apostol admitted that respondents office ha[d] a back door and the same [was] locked with a main lock and two barrel bolts. It was his daily chore to open this back door from the inside by unlocking the barrel bolts.After he had done this he would go down to the street to await the arrival of the respondent.

2.Liza Moreno, 47 years old, married, was respondents second witness.She is a court stenographer in Branch 51 presided by respondent.She had been with the MeTC since January 2, 1969.She affirmed the sworn statement consisting of two pages (Exhibits 10 and 10-A) which she had jointly executed with Lina V. Cara, a clerk in the same branch who had been in the service for 17 years.

She said that during the almost five years that she had been under the respondent, no one had charged him administratively.She described him as friendly and helpful to those working under him.His office was always open to his subordinates.The same is not sound proof such that if anything untoward happened inside or [if there was] any loud conversation [it] would be noticed by those in the staff room.

During these past days she was stunned to learn that Judge de Asa had been charged [with] sexual harassment by Nina, Nora and Flor because she had not seen the respondent do anything indecent to these three women.Everytime Nina saw the Judge, she would smilingly greet him with such remarks as Hi, Judge or sometimes Hello, Im sexy now.

She learned about the charges on August 8, 1997 when she [went] to the Office of the Clerk of Court to fetch Fe Apostol.She [was] told by the employees thereat about the incident.She said that she [went] up to Branch 51 [o]n the third floor to ask her coworkers whether they had heard the news that the respondent had kissed someone.Those who were still in replied that they had not.

Moreno further declared that Barreto used to come to Branch 51 to have papers signed by respondent and sometimes she came to cut the hair of certain employees, including the respondent himself.On the other hand, she had seen Dawa only once when she came with her co-employees at Branch 52 to have their daily time records signed.

3.Mario Muncal, respondents third witness is 47 years old and single.He affirmed the contents of his sworn statement (Exhibit 11; Record, p. 53).

Muncal stated that on August 7, 1997, he had gone to see the respondent about a job in the MeTC.When he entered respondents office, Atty. Buencamino was with him.De Asa introduced Muncal to Buencamino telling her about his application for a job in the court.Atty. Buencamino told Muncal to wait for her at her office.When Muncal saw Buencamino, the latter told him that he would have to undergo an observation period of one to two weeks.She further told him that although he had been recommended by respondent, she would be his direct superior and he was admonished not to relate anywhere else whatever he heard or saw in her office.

Muncal was taken aback by this admonition knowing that respondent, as executive judge, was her superior and was entitled to know everything that happened in the clerk of courts office.He left after Buencamino had told him to return on August 11 to begin his observation period.He returned to the respondent to thank him for his assistance.

Muncal learned that Atty. Buencamino had another candidate for the vacant position so that he had second thoughts about returning to her.However, on August 16, 1997, after reading in the papers that respondent was being charged with sexual harassment upon the instigation of Atty. Buencamino, he decided to see respondent and relate to him what had happened on August 11, 1997.

4.RespondentJudge Armando C. de Asa, took the stand in the afternoon of February 24, 1998.He affirmed his nine-page answer to the present charges (Exhibit 12; Record, pp. 37-45).

Respondent declared that while there [was] a back door to his private office, the same [was] locked from the inside with two barrel bolts besides a main lock.Every day, he would use this door for entering his office as well as going out of it in order to avoid ambush talks with people.It was the duty of Arnel Apostol to draw the barrel bolts before respondent arrived at his office so that when he came, he could open the main lock with his key and have no difficulty in entering the said office.Whenever Apostol was absent, it was Fernandez who did the opening for respondent.

In his written answer to the charges, respondent claimed that all these charges were obviously instigated and altogether orchestrated.He accused the Clerk of Court, Atty. Mona Liza Buencamino, as the prime mover of this cabal and that aside from her there were other people behind the conspiracy who ha[d] yet to be uncovered.

Respondent further claimed that the complaints were set up, hatched and designed, to destabilize and destroy the good image of the undersigned created in the minds of party litigants, government, local as well as private concerns, in Caloocan City.Although, known to be strict [in] fining lawyers, litigants, court personnel and even himself, for unsatisfactory and unexpected justifications for violations of court rules and procedures, he had gained respect and admiration for his reasonable, well[-]balance[d], compassionate and well[-]meant application of the rule of law.

As a possible reason for the animosity of Atty. Buencamino toward him, the respondent stated in his Answer, the following:

Accordingly, as acting executive judge, work concerns and attitudes, were honed up if not altogether dramatically changed.Misconceptions have been straightened up.It was emphasized that the Office of the Clerk of Court [was] not an independent body.It must be the secretariat or unit that should serve and cater not only to its own concern, but that of all the administrative as well as functional requirements of the Metropolitan Trial Courts,thereat.Not because, it is called the Office of the Clerk of Court, would mean that the clerk of court installed, is a co-equal of the judges thereat.It was made clear that it was for this reason why an Executive Judge/Vice Executive Judge is designated, to fill up this impasse.Further, as clerk of court, functionally, such a position is under the direct control and supervision of all judges thereat.Accordingly, except those as provided for under the rules and applicable circulars, when a clerk of court can act independently, any action, movement, process and exercise, taken, with national, local as well as private agencies must bear the imprimatur of the executive Judge.This directive apparently was not observed.Either it was misunderstood, taken lightly, seriously resisted or even disregarded.But its non-observance cannot be excused or countenanced.

Monthly meeting[s] with all clerks of court were scheduled and designed to update and enhance their working knowledge on assigned task[s].Important concerns and problems of their offices [were] supposed to be taken up.

Hours of work were strictly implemented, loitering/roaming around during office hours was prohibited, time records of the Clerk of Court.Clerks of Court of branches including its [sic] personnel, with presiding judges on leave or vacant, must after, its being authenticated, must [sic] be signed by the Executive Judge.

Reports of immoral acts and loose moral values were received, specifically in the office of the clerk of court.Ms. Buencamino was apprised and directed to closely monitor such problem.Before the staging of this hatchup, the undersigned received reports of its unabated occurrences.However, either these were treated with tolerance or viewed with blind eyes.

Most importantly, for purposes of effective control, an installation of an office for the Executive Judge was conceived.This project was apparently disliked.It was about the last week of July or first week of August, 1997, that Judge Santiago informed the undersigned, that we ha[d] to implement such a scheme.The plan was to get the room of Atty. Buencamino, to house the Executive Judge[s] office, as its perimeter, appeared easily organizable with least renovation and expense, for a conference room and a library, folded into one.Buencamino, in turn, would take the room of David Maniquis, deputy clerk of court, who should occupy the executive table used by the former, located outside, along with OCC personnel for proper monitoring and active control of the affairs in the office.

As related to me by Judge Santiago, she told Mona Lisa about it and insinuated to her, to follow first before talking with me, have the room vacated, place pertinent documents/papers, to be signed and attended to, locked [sic] it, if the Executive Judge, [was] not around.Atty. Buencamino approached me in disgust, proposing an alternative.She submitted a plan for renovation, as she insisted in maintaining her present location.She suggested to move the Executive Judge[s] office in the middle, the end part, housing the office of Maniquis, [to] be the one to be converted as conference room and library.For her to occupy David Maniquis[] office was bad punsoy (feng shui).However, Judge Santiagos directive was firm.Mona Lisa must have to comply first.The matter of renovation, to be further studied.The suggested sketch plan with scribblings from Judge Delfina Santiago dated August 6, 1997, is likewise hereto attached as annex 7.Mrs. Buencamino vacated her office, refused David Maniquis room and stayed [at] her table outside with the OCCs personnel.

Also during the occasion, as there was a vacancy for the position of a sheriff in the said office, the undersigned recommended one Mario Muncal, Jr. y de Castro, telling Ms. Buencamino that for the more than four (4) years that he stayed in the office, he was not given the privilege of appointing one of his own choice.She retorted to try Muncal as an understudy for about one (1) to two (2) weeks.The undersigned acceded.Mr. Muncal followed Ms. Buencamino to her office where he was interviewed, advised and instructed by the latter.He came back before he left and informed me of the developments but he never showed up at the designated time.He reappeared after reading the accounts in the newspapers about the complaints lodged against me, with revealing statements why he gave a second thought [about] returning or not.His affidavit is attached as Annex 8 (pp. 3-5, Exhibit 12; pp. 39-41 of the Record).(Underscoring supplied).

Considering the above, respondent believed that Ms. Mona Lisa Buencamino, took all my actions, with disdain, suspicion, more so, with resistance.On her face, she regretted the fact of my designation as Acting Executive Judge.She is not used to being controlled.She would want to maintain her madrina and godmother (i.e. influential, wealthy, etc.) image not only among the employees but also among the judges as well.Thus, these pathos, comics.(p. 5, Exhibit 12, Record, p. 41).

On the witness stand respondent vehemently denied the story of Floride Dawa.He stated that on August 8, 1997, he had come to work between 9:30 and 10:00 oclock in the morning.Neither Apostol nor Fernandez met him.He found that his back door was still closed and could not be opened with his key.For this reason he had to enter through his courtroom.He said he did not see Floride Dawa near the comfort room that morning.He saw her at 11:45 when he made his rounds as executive judge.

The above testimony is also in respondents Exhibit 12 where he stated that:

The Floride Dawa story, that she was seen by the undersigned after coming from the public toilet located along the third floor hallway obliquely facing the backdoor exit of the undersigneds chamber, asking her whether said comfort room was cleaned, to which she retorted in the negative, thereafter calling her up, placing the judges arm around her shoulders, led her to his room and twice kissed her, to which she reportedly resisted.Afterwards, conversing with him, answering questions, as the latter sat comfortably at his seat, as though nothing had transpired.This is quite indeed a long process to lend credence to such prevarication.Aside from the fact, that the backdoor of the undersigneds office was not shown to have been closed on the date the alleged sham had happened, a verification of the site where the reported incident took place would show that the backdoor of the undersigneds office leads to a wide public hallway fronting directly the stairs servicing the second and third floor[s] of said building, where people come and go.The circumstances of persons, time and place cannot fit under such a frame set.[](pp. 6-7, Exhibit 12; pp. 42-43 of the Record).

As regards the charges of Noraliz Jorgensen, he expressed surprise that Buencamino believed her story.The following is what he said:

[]Surprisingly, Mona Lisa coddled Noraliz L. Jorgensen, a casual employee, x x x detailed at the office of the Clerk of Court, and believed her story.Ms. Jorgensen is reportedly separated from her husband.Her credibility throughout the courts environs appears highly questionable, especially among her staff in the Office of the Clerk of Court.In fact, an unsigned letter was sent not only to the undersigned but also with Judge Santiago, divulging, her unchaste relationship with a co-employee, also assigned in the office of the Clerk of Court. x x x Ms. Buencamino, as her immediate superior, was advised, to closely monitor on [sic] this.Despite thereof [sic], the illicit relationship appeared to have continued.Nonetheless, she was convinced by Buencamino to execute and swear to a statement, which [was] maliciously and boldly concocted. x x x.Be that as it may, the story of victim Noraliz borders the realm of illusion and fiction.In no less than three (3) occasions, the dates of which, to lend credibility, were fixed to coincide when the allowances were allegedly released and given to the respective judges, she claimed to have been licked at her ear, her mouth forced open, and kissed by the undersigned.If one was indeed a victim of such sexual harassment or lascivious conduct, why would she, after the first incident (January 31, 1997) return for the second (May 26, 1997) and third time (August 4, 1997) and allow herself to suffer the same fate[?]This indeed, is preposterous.It does not have the rings of truth to it.Her lame excuse, that no one could do her assigned chore, does not have any legal as well as factual leg to lean on.As far as the undersigned can remember, there was Roderick Corral (Odi) who can do it.One Baby Mapue had occasion to do the same chore.Even others in the OCC can perform such feat.Such signing is not the exclusive affair of Noraliz L. Jorgensen. Even the August 4, 1977 incident, would not dissuade [sic] a person in her right mind, that she will still allow herself to be left behind by a co-employee (Roderick Corral) whom she saw ahead of her inside the judges office and be subjected to the same alleged indignant act.This is plainly ABSURD.(pp. 5-6, Exhibit 12, pp. 41-42 of the Record).

Regarding the story of Femenina Lazaro, respondent said the following:

[]Lastly, the Femenina Lazaro Barreto account appear[s] to be a mere patch up.Under the principle that in numbers there is strength, they blended anotherscenarioconsistently claiming that they were kissed, their mouths forcibly opened.In Barretos version, she claimed that she went to the office of the undersigned to have an order signed as their Presiding Judge was then, on leave.Immediately thereafter, the judge stood up, approached her and kissed her.This was allegedly repeated[,] she reportedly resisted.Then she left.

The size and arrangement of the undersigneds chamber, would rule out such hallucination.The undersigned ha[s] developed the attitude of transparency, in his dealings with the public and his personnel.His room [is] always open.Everybody come[s] and go[es].His staff can go inside, any time they wish, without even knocking at his door, [get] cold water and even [use] his private comfort room.How then could this be possible.

In all these instances, nothing unusual was seen or heard, much less substantiated, except the self serving narrations of the alleged offended parties themselves.If there was really any commotion or resistance that occurred, the same could not escape the ears of my personnel, whose tables are constrictedly [sic] placed and immediately outside.In fact, even the dates alluded to, were even tailored to fit and coincide, just to give credence, to the presence of the complainants, in the alleged places of incident.[] (p. 7, Exhibit 12; p. 43, Record)."[10]

After evaluating all the pieces of evidence presented by the parties, Justice Romulo S. Quimbo arrived at a conclusion, the salient portions of which are reproduced below:

1.There is sufficient evidence to create a moral certainty that respondent committed the acts he is charged with.The testimonies of the three complainants were not in any manner emasculated by the lengthy and thorough cross examination personally conducted by the respondent.Incidentally, the undersigned had to recess the investigation several times to give complainants time to compose themselves as they invariably broke down in tears as they were required to relate the repeated violations of their persons and their honors by respondent.

Complainants declarations were also fully corroborated by the persuasive testimony of Judge Santiago who had the opportunity of hearing Dawas story soon after it had occurred and the uninhibited retelling by the other complainants.Judge Santiago, on her own accord, wrote a verified letter to the Court Administrator (Exhibits I, I-1 to I-7; Record, pp. 17-24), wherein she narrated all that she knew of the different incidents. x x x.[11]

x x xx x xx x x

2.Respondent has not proven any vicious motive for complainants to invent their stories.It is highly improbable that the three complainants would perjure themselves only to accommodate Atty. Buencamino who may have had some real or imagined resentment against respondent.Moreover, the reason given by respondent for the ill will that Atty. Buencamino felt against him is too superficial to genuinely cause such malevolence, specially because it was Judge Santiago who insisted on the relocation of Atty. Buencamino so that her office could be used by the executive judge.[12]

x x xx x xx x x

The fact that respondent was strict in requiring the employees of the court to perform their duties and to observe office hours and his prohibition against loitering and idleness in the premises of the court is not enough to motivate [the] three women into exposing themselves to ridicule and chastisement, not to mention criminal prosecution, by relating false stories that would also be derogatory to them.

Jorgensen may have entertained some hostility at respondents calling her attention to an anonymous letter which mentioned her indiscretions with another employees of the OCC who was also married.We are not convinced that this would move her into fabricating a story as shocking as the one she related under oath. x x x.[13]

x x xx x xx x x

Respondent may have committed an error of judgment when he misjudged the young Floride Dawa to be fair game.Feeling perhaps that the nod Dawa gave him, when she saw him as she was about to enter the comfort room, was an invitation, he took advantage of the young maiden and forced himself on her.Perhaps because Dawa was nave and innocent, she panicked and became near hysterical prompting Carpio to question her.This broke the dam, so to speak.When it became known that Floride Dawa was going to file a case against respondent, a slew of indignant women surfaced also wanting to file charges against respondent for his many indiscretions.How many more remain who prefer to suffer their humiliation in silence, we can only speculate.[14]

3.Respondents denials cannot overcome the probative value of the positive assertions of complainants and their witnesses.This is elementary.Neither were the negative observations of respondents witnesses sufficient to belie the complainants declarations.All his witnesses could attest to was that they had not seen respondent do anything obscene to the complainants nor to others.The fact that they did not see such lewd acts is not proof that they did not occur specially so because they were all done in the privacy of respondents chambers.[15]

x x xx x xx x x

PREMISES CONSIDERED and in line with the decisions in Junio vs. Rivera, Jr.,supraand Talens-Dabon vs. Arceo,supra, we regretfully recommend that respondent be dismissed from the service for gross misconduct and immorality, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and with prejudice to reemployment in any branch of the government, including government owned or controlled corporations.[16]

The Court reviewed the entire record of the instant administrative case and found the findings, conclusion and recommendation of the investigating justice to be adequately substantiated by the evidence presented by the parties and anchored on applicable law and jurisprudence.Thus, with no need to rehash the reprehensible indiscretions of the respondent judge, we adopt the conclusion and recommendation of the investigating justice.

The peoples confidence in the judicial system is founded not only on the magnitude of legal knowledge and the diligence of the members of the bench, but also on the highest standard of integrity and moral uprightness they are expected to possess.[17]More than simply projecting an image of probity, a judge must not only appear to be a good judge; he must also appear to be a good person.[18]It is towards this sacrosanct goal of ensuring the peoples faith and confidence in the judiciary that the Code of Judicial Conduct mandates the following:

CANON 1

A JUDGE SHOULD UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY.

RULE 1.01. -- A judge should be the embodiment of competence, integrity, and independence.

x x xx x xx x x

CANON 2

A JUDGE SHOULD AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL ACTIVITIES.

RULE 2.02. A judge should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

The Canons of Judicial Ethics further provides:A judges official conduct should be free from the appearance of impropriety, and his personal behavior, not only upon the bench and in the performance of judicial duties, but also in his everyday life, should be beyond reproach.

By the very nature of the bench, judges, more than the average man, are required to observe an exacting standard of morality and decency.The character of a judge is perceived by the people not only through his official acts but also through his private morals, as reflected in his external behavior.It is therefore paramount that a judges personal behavior, both in the performance of his duties and in his daily life, be free from the appearance of impropriety as to be beyond reproach.[19]For this reason, [t]he Code dictates that a judge, in order to promote public confidence in the judiciary, must behave with propriety at all times.[20]This mandate has special import for municipal and metropolitan trial court judges, like herein respondent, since they are the front-liners of the judiciary who serve more people at the grass-roots level of society.[21]

In the present case, we find totally unacceptable the temerity of the respondent judge in subjecting herein complainants, his subordinates all, to his unwelcome sexual advances and acts of lasciviousness.Not only do the actions of respondent judge fall short of the exacting standards for members of the judiciary; they stand no chance of satisfying the standards of decency even of society at large.His severely abusive and outrageous acts, which are an affront to women, unmistakably constitute sexual harassment because they necessarily x x x result in an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment for the employee[s].[22]Let it be remembered that respondent has moral ascendancy and authority over complainants, who are mere employees of the court of which he is an officer.

In view of the stature of respondent judge, as well as his authority and official responsibility over the complainants, who were his subordinates in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Caloocan City, the Court concludes with moral certainty that he acted beyond the bounds of decency, morality and propriety and violated the Code of Judicial Conduct.The bench is not a place for persons like him.His gross misconduct warrants his removal from office.[23]In resolving this administrative matter, we deem it apt to iterate our pronouncement in Talens-Dabon vs. Arceo,viz.:

Respondent has failed to measure up to these exacting standards.He has behaved in a manner unbecoming of a judge as a model of moral uprightness.He has betrayed the peoples high expectations and diminished the esteem in which they hold the judiciary in general.

x x xx x xx xx

The actuations of respondent are aggravated by the fact that the complainant is one of his subordinates over whom he exercises control and supervision, he being the executive judge.He took advantage of his position and power in order to carry out his lustful and lascivious desires.Instead of being inloco parentisover his subordinate employees, respondent was the one who preyed on them, taking advantage of his superior position.[24]

WHEREFORE, Respondent Judge Armando C. de Asa is hereby DISMISSED from the service for gross misconduct and immorality, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and leave credits and with prejudice to reemployment in any branch of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.

SO ORDERED.

[A.M. No. RTJ-01-1625.March 10, 2003]

JOSELITO S. PASCUAL,complainant, vs. JUDGE RODOLFO R. BONIFACIO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 151, PASIG CITY,respondent.

R E S O L U T I O N

QUISUMBING,J.:

Before us is the verified letter-complaint[1]of Joselito S. Pascual, dated October 19, 1999, charging Judge Rodolfo R. Bonifacio of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 151, with conduct unbecoming a judge.Specifically, complainant avers that respondent was seeking to influence him improperly in the settlement of a case pending before respondents own court.

The complaint alleged that Judge Bonifacio took over the cases pending before the RTC of Pasig City, Branch 151, following the death of Judge Deogracias O. Felizardo in August 1998. Among these cases wasAmelia Manas-Pascual v. Joselito S. Pascual,docketed as SP PROC JDRC Case No. 2913, a suit filed by complainants wife to annul their marriage of 15 years standing. Complainant filed a counterclaim for legal separation. At the time Judge Bonifacio took over, SP PROC JDRC Case No. 2913 had already been submitted for decision.

Complainant averred that at around 9:00 p.m. of November 25, 1998, respondent came to see him at the Manila Hotels Lobby Lounge, where complainant was then employed as a pianist. Judge Bonifacio told complainant that he wanted SP PROC JDRC Case No. 2913 settled.Respondent judge then suggested that complainant should agree to a 1/3:2/3 sharing of the conjugal assets between him and his two children by his estranged wife.Respondent further recommended that the Pascuals conjugal home in Ayala Alabang Village, Muntinlupa City should be sold and the share of the children given to them.Respondent then made it clear that complainant would not be given the administration of his childrens 2/3 share from the proceeds of the sale.

According to complainant, he refused to heed respondents proposal, as he believed that his counterclaim was meritorious and that he was entitled to a share in the conjugal assets.

Complainants conversation with respondent ended with the latter assuring him that he would inhibit himself from the case if complainant would file a motion to inhibit.

On December 3, 1998, complainant filed a motion to inhibit respondent judge, citing as his reason respondents lack of sufficient experience in hearing and resolving family disputes.[2]

On December 14, 1998, respondent denied said motion for being untenable as the apprehensions of movant are unfounded and do not constitute legal grounds for inhibition.[3]

On January 7, 1999, complainant moved for reconsideration of the order dated December 14, 1998, this time citing as a more serious ground, his loss of confidence in respondents impartiality as a judge, citing their conversation on November 25, 1998 at the Manila Hotel Lobby Lounge.[4]Complainant also pointed out that he had a sister-in-law who is a Bonifacio but was not certain if there is a relationship between her and the presiding judge, by consanguinity or affinity.[5]

On August 27, 1999, respondent denied the motion for reconsideration for the reason that the bases for inhibition cited by complainant were untenable.[6]

Hence, the instant complaint.

In his comment on the complaint, respondent judge denied that he came to see complainant at the Manila Hotel Lobby Lounge on November 28, 1998 for the purpose of trying to settle SP PROC JDRC Case No. 2913. Respondent claimed that he was at said place during said time upon invitation of Judge Arsenio Magpale, presiding judge of the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 225 for the purpose of finalizing the pairing arrangements as well as prizes for the annual golf tournament of the Philippine Judges Association at the Capitol Hills Golf Course in Quezon City.[7]Judge Magpale was accompanied by one Severino Menia.In the course of said meeting, complainant whom respondent had never met before but who appeared to be known to Menia, joined them. Complainant revealed he had an annulment case pending before respondents sala. Complainant then started asking questions about marriage and family law, which Judge Magpale politely answered.When it became apparent that complainant was trying to steer the conversation towards his own case, respondent allegedly advised him to just consult his lawyer.In support of his comment, respondent judge submitted Judge Magpales affidavit to the effect that the two judges were introduced to complainant only on said date.

In his reply, complainant refuted both respondents comment as well as Judge Magpales statement in his affidavit that it was only after introduction that he came to know that both respondent and Judge Magpale were members of the judiciary. Complainant asserted that he and Judge Magpale had known each other well before their meeting on November 25, 1998, and had in fact, met several times before said date.In support of his declaration, complainant submitted an affidavit of Dr. Manuel Agulto.

On September 21, 2000, complainant filed a supplement to reply, inviting attention to the silence of respondent and Judge Magpale regarding Dr. Agultos affidavit, which called for a response.

On January 24, 2001, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended that the case be referred to a Justice of the Court of Appeals for investigation, report, and recommendation.

On March 14, 2001, we referred this matter to Justice Conchita Carpio Morales[8]of the Court of Appeals for appropriate investigation, report, and recommendation.

On June 26, 2001, complainants counsel manifested that complainant was no longer interested in pursuing the case as he was now working abroad and could not attend to it.Said counsel then submitted a computer printout of an e-mail letter[9]from complainant to him in support of said manifestation.

Respondent prayed for the dismissal of the complaint for complainants failure to prove his allegations.

On August 22, 2002, Justice Morales submitted her report, finding that respondent had violated Canon 2[10]of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The investigating Justice found that respondents attempt at convincing complainant to agree to settling the annulment case under his (respondents) proposed terms dents his impartiality and erodes the public confidence in him as in fact it was on such account that complainant filed a Motion to Inhibit him.[11]The report also noted that despite the filing of the administrative complaint against him on October 22, 1999, respondent still decided SP PROC JDRC Case No. 2913 on December 10, 1999 against complainant, which reflects his lack ofdelicadezaand only served to confirm complainants charge of his lack of impartiality.[12]The report then went on to recommend that for breach of the Canons of Judicial Conduct, respondent be meted the penalty of FINE of thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00).[13]

We find relevant for resolution the following: (1) the effect of complainants desistance; and (2) the propriety of the investigators findings and recommendation.

On thefirst issue, complainants desistance in the instant case does not mean that the charge is without merit.The withdrawal of the complaint or complainants loss of interest will not necessarily cause the dismissal of an administrative case against a judge.For to condition an administrative action upon the will of the complainant, who for one reason or another, condones a detestable act, would be to strip this Court of its power to supervise and discipline erring members of the judiciary.[14]

On thesecond issue, we agree with the findings of the investigator.In the instant case the respondent does not deny meeting complainant at the Manila Hotel on November 25, 1998. In respondents order dated August 27, 1999, denying complainants motion for reconsideration, complainants allegation that respondent tried to persuade him to agree to respondents proposed sharing of the Pascuals conjugal assets was summarily written off as untenable without any explanation whatsoever.Further it took seven (7) months for respondent to rule on complainants motion for reconsideration, yet in that span of time, he could not come up with either a factual or legal basis to show why complainants allegation was untenable. As the investigator correctly points out, respondents failure to amplify his untenable ruling gives merit to complainants contention that respondent, in effect, admitted his improper conduct.

Upon assumption of office, a judge becomes the visible representation of the law and of justice.Membership in the judiciary circumscribes ones personal conduct and imposes upon him a number of inhibitions, whose faithful observance is the price one has to pay for holding such an exalted position.[15]Thus, a magistrate of the law must comport himself at all times in such a manner that his conduct, official or otherwise, can withstand the most searching public scrutiny, for the ethical principles and sense of propriety of a judge are essential to the preservation of the peoples faith in the judicial system.[16]This Court does not require of judges that they measure up to the standards of conduct of the saints and martyrs, but we do expect them to be like Caesars wife in all their activities.Hence, we require them to abide strictly by the Code of Judicial Conduct.[17]

It appears now that respondent has failed to live up to those rigorous standards.Whether or not he purposely went to the Manila Hotel on November 25, 1998 to meet complainant or only had a chance meeting with him, his act of trying to convince complainant to agree to his proposal is an act of impropriety. It is improper and highly unethical for a judge to suggest to a litigant what to do to resolve his case for such would generate the suspicion that the judge is in collusion with one party.A litigant in a case is entitled to no less than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge.[18]Judges are not only required to be impartial, but also to appear to be so, for appearance is an essential manifestation of reality.[19]Hence, not only must a judge render a just decision, he is also duty bound to render it in a manner completely free from suspicion as to its fairness and its integrity.[20]Respondents conduct in the instant case inevitably invites doubts about respondents probity and integrity.It gives ground for a valid reproach. In the judiciary, moral integrity is more than a cardinal virtue, it is a necessity.[21]Moreover, a judges lack of impartiality or the mere appearance of bias would cause resentment if the party who refused the judges proposal subsequently lost his case.It would give rise to suspicion that the judgment was fixed beforehand.Such circumstance tarnishes the image of the judiciary and brings to it public contempt, disrepute, and ridicule.Thus, we are constrained to rule that respondent violated Rule 2.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.[22]His misconduct is not excused but rather made more glaring by the fact that the controversy involving complainant was pending in his own sala.

It is recommended by the designated investigator, Justice Morales, that a fine ofP30,000.00 be imposed on respondent.Considering that the specific violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct was proved, we are in agreement on the imposition of a fine.But we also note that this is the first case against respondent, which could be taken into account in the imposition of the penalty by way of mitigation, together with other circumstances of this case.A minimum fine ofP10,000 appears to us sufficient.

WHEREFORE,respondent Judge Rodolfo R. Bonifacio, presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 151 is foundGUILTY of violating the Code of Judicial Conduct and is ordered to pay a fine of TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10,000.00), with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future will be dealt with more severely.Let a copy of this Resolution be attached to the personnel records of respondent.

SO ORDERED.

[A.M. No. 97-2-53-RTC.July 6, 2001]

RE: COMPLAINT OF MRS. ROTILLA A. MARCOS AND HER CHILDREN AGAINST JUDGE FERDINAND J. MARCOS, RTC, BR. 20, CEBU CITY

D E C I S I O N

PER CURIAM:

In a hand written letter dated December 9, 1996[1]addressed to the Honorable Andres Narvasa, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Mrs. Rotilla A. Marcos, the wife of Judge Ferdinand J. Marcos, and their children Joshua A. Marcos and Hazel Faith Marcos Barliso complained against Judge Ferdinand J. Marcos of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 20 at Cebu City, alleging that ever since Ferdinand J. Marcos was appointed judge of the Regional Trial Court at Cebu City, Branch 20, his family had never seen nor took hold of his cheques; that they have only been receiving a minimal amount which was insufficient for their education and for their sustenance; that they were made to believe that he was only receiving a small remuneration as an RTC Judge; that it was only in August 1996 when they got hold of his RATA, JDF and basic salary cheques; that these were not even enough to pay his obligations with the CFI Community Cooperative and other private persons; that he was enjoying his extra-ordinary allowance, local and city allowances, bonuses, amelioration pays, and 14thmonth pays; that he even got his second quincena of November direct in Manila when he was enjoying his one-week leave of absence with his mistress.

Mrs. Rotilla A. Marcos and her children Joshua and Hazel prayed that all the remuneration due Judge Marcos from the Supreme Court be directly released to Mrs. Marcos at the school where she has been serving for 20 years (the Abellana National School) to prevent his mistress from getting them.They added that Judge Marcos was still receiving local and city allowances and a salary from the Southwestern University where he teaches in the College of Law.They likewise stated that it would be advisable for him to resign from the bench, as reassigning him to other judicial regions would eventually deprive them of support for he will definitely take along his ambitious mistress, or she would follow him and might pressure him to go into graft and corruption.

In the resolution, dated March 18, 1997, the Court required Judge Ferdinand J. Marcos to file his comment on the complaint.[2]

In his comment, dated May 15, 1997,[3]Judge Marcos denied his failure to support complainants and alleged that during the first few months of assuming his job on the bench, he faithfully and regularly gave to his wife the total amount of P15,000.00; that he alone spent for their daily transportation and for the daily miscellaneous expenses of their son, Joshua A. Marcos, a medical student at the time, notwithstanding the fact that his wife also earns a salary as a public school teacher; that the amount he gave to his wife was sufficient for her and their family's needs; that the loan contracted with the CFI Community Cooperative did not pose a serious problem to the financial standing of his family because it was made during his first five (5) months in the judiciary when he had not yet received his salary; that most of the proceeds of the said loan were for the tuition fee of their son Joshua; that said loan was payable in affordable monthly installments and that he hoped it would be fully paid before the end of the year 1997; that he was not indebted to any private person, not even when he was still a private law practitioner; that he had no idea why his wife thought that he would be better off resigning from the judiciary; that even if he were transferred to another sala his regular support to his family will continue; that the issue of his having a mistress is not true as he has never been linked extra-maritally with another woman; that his wife and children had already signed a letter withdrawing their letter/complaint against him; and he had signed a letter of undertaking to give all the checks due him from the Supreme Court to his wife.He prayed among other things, for the dismissal of the complaint against him as they were living in one roof as a family and as this administrative case is becoming a wedge of hostility between them.

On July 29, 1997, this Court issued a resolution referring the matter to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation, report and recommendation.[4]

In his report dated October 17, 1997,[5]Deputy Court Administrator Bernardo P. Abesamis recommended that the complaint be considered closed and terminated, it appearing that the complaint against Judge Ferdinand Marcos was already threshed out and there being no more compelling reason to proceed against him.He based his report on the letter-withdrawal dated January 10, 1997 submitted by the complainants and the letter of undertaking signed by Judge Marcos.

In their letter/withdrawal dated January 10, 1997,[6]the complainants stated that they wanted to withdraw their letter/complaint against Judge Marcos as he had made an undertaking that Mrs. Rotilla A. Marcos shall receive all the checks due him from the Supreme Court; and that the issue of the alleged mistress grew out of unconfirmed reports and had already been thoroughly discussed by the family council.They requested that the matter contained in their letter/complaint be treated as a closed matter.

On the other hand, Judge Ferdinand J. Marcos, in his letter of undertaking, offered no objection to his wife getting all the checks due him from the Supreme Court and gave her the authority to get them directly from the Supreme Court or from the Clerk of Court of RTC, Cebu City.He strongly denied having any relationship with any woman when he talked with his wife and children. His alleged relationship sprung from unconfirmed reports from the media.[7]

As the report of DCA Abesamis was not approved by the Court Administrator and the latter did not report the matter to the CourtEn Banc,the case remained suspended until the Honorable Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. reported to the CourtEn Bancon August 14, 2000, the scandalous incident he witnessed at theFun Runsponsored by the Philippine Judges Association held on August 11, 2000.Among the RTC judges who attended and joined theFun Runwas Judge Ferdinand J. Marcos.A woman who was reported to be hisqueridaaccompanied him.Judge Marcos and thequeridajoined the Judges at the temporary place reserved for the Judges and during the latter's breakfast thereat were seated near each other.

Chief Justice Davide pulled Judge Marcos aside to validate the facts about the latter's illicit relationship with the woman. Judge Marcos admitted, among other things, that he had been living with the woman, Mae Tacaldo, for three (3) years already, and that he was separated from his wife.Judge Marcos was the one who supplied the name of the woman.

In view of this admission, the Chief Justice recommended the referral of the case for investigation to OCA Consultant, Justice Pedro Ramirez, and the suspension from office of Judge Ferdinand J. Marcos.

Adopting the recommendation of the Chief Justice, the Court issued a resolution on August 15, 2000 ordering the suspension of Judge Marcos from office until further orders from this Court, in view of the confirmed continuing illicit and scandalous relations between him and a certain Mae Tacaldo and the referral of the case to Justice Pedro Ramirez, Consultant, Office of the Court Administrator, for investigation, report and recommendation.But because Justice Ramirez had to leave for the United States of America, the matter was referred to Justice Romulo S. Quimbo, Consultant, Office of the Court Administrator.

Justice Quimbo issued notices to the parties that the case will be heard at the Office of the Executive Judge in Cebu City from November 13 to 15, 2000.[8]

On November 13, 2000, the case was called in the private chambers of the Executive Judge of Cebu City.Only the respondent and his counsel appeared because the notices did not arrive soon enough in Cebu City.For that reason, the Process Server of RTC, Cebu City, Branch 18, was requested to serve the notices on the complainants.

The next day, November 14, 2000, both parties appeared at the office of the Executive Judge.Complainant Rotilla Marcos came alone while respondent appeared with his counsel.Complainant manifested that her counsel was unavailable due to previous commitments.Counsel for the respondent begged to be excused as he also had personal commitments.Thus the case was reset for the next day.

On November 15, 2000, complainants presented Judge Meinrado Paredes of Branch 13, RTC, Cebu City. After he was discharged, complainant Rotilla Marcos took the stand herself.Since her testimony (direct examination) was not completed the hearing was continued the next day.Her direct testimony was completed on November 16, 2000 but her cross-examination was deferred to December 5, 6, and 7, 2000.

On December 5, 2000, respondent appeared without his counsel and personally cross-examined the complainant.After her testimony, complainants introduced four other witnesses, namely: Maximo Abing, Orencio Tarongoy, Leoncio M. Balangkig, and Lerma Eguia, all of whom appeared in obedience to subpoenas issued by the hearing officer-designate.These witnesses were presented principally to identify certain documents that were marked and later formally offered in writing.

Complainants' documentary evidence consisted of Exhibits "A" -picture of Maydelane Tacaldo, the alleged mistress of the respondent; "B" -the letter/complaint received by the Court on December 12, 1996;[9]"C" -RCPI telegram directing respondent to attend a PJA stay-in seminar on June 20-22, 1996 in Mandaluyong; "D" -Islacom Statement of Account dated June 3, 1996; "D-1" -address of respondent at 615 ZA P. del Rosario Extension, Cebu City; "E" -handwritten letter of one Mrs. E. Dandan, dated October 3, 1995 addressed to respondent demanding payment of the account of May in the sum of P11 ,400; "E-1" -a portion thereof; "F" -RCPI social telegram addressed to respondent purportedly from Mae Tacaldo; "F-1" -a portion thereof; "G" -Bankard Statement of Account dated September 10, 1997 addressed to respondent; "G-1 " -page 2 thereof; "H" -unsigned Certification of Tenant; "I" -Invoice issued by Paramount General Insurance Corporation (Paramount, for brevity) for a "Toyota Revo" Model 1999 allegedly owned in common by respondent and Maydelane Tacaldo; "I-1" -portion showing the names and addresses of the insured as "Marcos, Ferdinand J. and Tacaldo, Maydelene B. of Rodriguez St., Zosa Compound, Capitol Site, Cebu City"; "I-2" -particulars of the vehicle insured; "J" -Order issued by respondent on January 24, 2000, in Civil Case No. CEB- 19070; "J-1", "J-2", "J-3", and "J-4" -portions thereof; "K" -October 28, 2000 issue of "THE FREEMAN"; "K-1" and "K-2" -portions thereof; "L" -October 20, 200