A.M. No. RTJ-02-1708. July 23, 2002
CYNTHIA RESNGIT-MARQUEZ, SHIELAH J. RAMOS, ROSALINDA L. ROQUILLAS AND VICKY F. RAMOS, COMPLAINANTS, VS. JUDGE VICTOR T. LLAMAS, JR., REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 56, SAN CARLOS …
PER CURIAM:
A magistrate has to live by the example of his precepts. He
cannot judge the
conduct of others when his own needs judgment. It should not be “do as I
say and
not what I do.” For then the court over which he is called to preside
will be a
mockery, one devoid of respect.[1]
We are called upon to reiterate this dictum in the
administrative matter
before us.
In an affidavit-complaint[2] dated
March 27, 1998, complainants’ court employees Cynthia Resngit-Marquez,
Shielah
J. Ramos, Rosalinda L. Roquillas and Vicky F. Ramos charged respondent
Victor T.
Llamas, Jr., Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 56, San
Carlos
City, Pangasinan, with immorality and gross misconduct. They alleged
that
respondent judge, though married, maintains an illicit relationship with
a
married woman, Lourdes Muñoz-Garcia, and both are living together as
husband and
wife under one roof; that the court sala of respondent Judge, as well as
the
office of his personnel, have been utilized as dancing halls and
drinking wine
rooms on office hours; that respondent Judge is drunk almost everyday;
that
respondent Judge is living a highly immoral and disgraceful life, and
this is of
open and public knowledge, and his mistress fondly calls him “Daddy”,
thereby
trumpeting their affair in open view; that the complainant have been
subjected
to the intimidation and harassment by respondent Judge.
In his Answer[3], dated July 30, 1998,
respondent Judge emphatically denied the accusations against him.
In a Resolution dated June 16, 1999, the affidavit-complaint
was referred to
Associate Justice Romeo A. Brawner of the Court of Appeals for
investigation,
report and recommendation.
Justice Brawner, after conducting the necessary investigation,
submitted his
Report and Recommendation dated September 14, 2001. Lengthy hearings
were
conducted on the case. Complainants Cynthia Resngit Marquez and Shielah
J. Ramos
and their witnesses Angelito Dixon Dispo, Engr. Librado C. Moises,
Manuel
Marquez, Atty. Leopoldo C. Tulagan, Sr., Atty. Omega Lacandola Moises
and Mario
Resultan testified in support of the complaint. On the other hand,
respondent
Judge himself testified as well as Lourdes Garcia, Angelica Muñoz,
Joseph Muñoz,
Gaudencio Sabangan, Benigno Abalos, Jr., Dolores Daligdig, Maura
Doctolera,
Andrew Mapanao and Rica Cabaccan.
We reproduce the following findings of fact and conclusions of
the
Investigating Justice:
“Complainant Cynthia
Resngit-Marquez is the Court
Interpreter of the Regional Trial Court of San Carlos City, Pangasinan,
Branch
57 until she requested for a transfer sometime in 1994. The presiding
judge of
Branch 56 at the time she was the Interpreter was respondent Judge.
During that
time, respondent Judge already had a drinking habit that started
sometime in
1991.“In February 1997, after his assignment in Dagupan City
respondent Judge went
back to San Carlos City. In March 1997, she saw respondent Judge again
resume
his drinking habits and he was always seen with a glass of wine in his
hands
roaming the Justice Hall premises even during office hours. He usually
drank
with lawyers and litigants and he would force his staff to drink with
them.
Should his staff refuse to join him, he would harass them. He loved
drinking
Carlsberg beer as he claims that it made him feel his young urges again.“When complainant’s husband was in Saudi Arabia, respondent
Judge would
insinuate that it was better for her to have an old car she could use
everyday
rather than a new car that she could not use. Aside from the drinking,
respondent Judge would also engage in singing and dancing in the
courtroom even
during office hours. The complainant identified the pictures (Exhibits
“D”, “E”,
“F” and “G”) showing the recreation area behind the Justice Hall and thecorridor leading to the courtroom where respondent Judge conducted his
drinking
sessions.“After respondent Judge’s return to San Carlos City,
complainant saw Lourdes
Muñoz Garcia almost everyday, as respondent Judge would drop her at her
place of
work at City Hall every morning. Lourdes Muñoz Garcia would usually
appear again
every lunchtime to join respondent Judge and would come back again in
the
afternoon after office hours and they would leave walking side by side
with
their arms sometimes touching each other. During the occasions that
Lourdes
Muñoz Garcia was in the office of respondent Judge, she would address
him as
‘Daddy’ or ‘Masiken’ (Pangasinense for old man).“All the time that respondent Judge had been assigned in San
Carlos City, he
resided near the cemetery in Karaengan, San Carlos City then near the
school in
Bulingit, San Carlos City and after his stint in Dagupan City, he stayed
at
Gabon, Calasiao, Pangasinan. In all these places, respondent Judge lived
with
Lourdes Muñoz Garcia.“During her cross-examination, she admitted that a previous
case was filed
against respondent Judge charging him for the same offenses as this
present
case. Although she states that she had nothing to do with the case it
appears
that the Motion to Dismiss said case (Exhibit “14”) was signed by her
and her
father, which motion paved the way for the dismissal of Administrative
Matter
No. 95-3-88 (Exhibit “15”).“Angelito Dixon Dispo is employed
as Clerk III in the Office
of the Clerk of the Regional Trial Court in San Carlos City, Pangasinan
since
October 3, 1993. Almost everyday, part of his duties included buying
liquor for
respondent Judge at the nearby grocery that the judge and some lawyers
partook
of in the courtroom. Aside from his drinking, there was singing with the
use of
the sing-along machine in the courtroom of RTC Branch 56 where the
respondent
Judge was presiding. Some private practitioners and prosecutors would
join in
the merrymaking that happened as often as thrice a week in the courtroom
of
respondent Judge. During these times, the noise emanating from his
courtroom
could be heard downstairs.“At that time, respondent Judge was residing at Barangay
Kariinan, San Carlos
City. There was a time that the house of respondent Judge was flooded
and
Angelito Dispo was ordered to go there to pile sandbags. At respondent
Judge’s
residence, he came upon Lourdes Muñoz Garcia attired in shorts and
undershirt
(sando) supervising the piling of sandbags.“On December 1, 1994, he was again at the house of respondent
Judge
butchering a goat in preparation for the birthday celebration of Lourdes
Muñoz
Garcia the following day. That afternoon, while he was washing the
dishes,
respondent Judge and Lourdes Muñoz Garcia were embracing and kissing
each other
on the lips.“It was March 28, 1995 or a day before respondent Judge’s
birthday party that
found Angelito Dispo again at his (Judge) residence where he was helping
in the
preparations for the birthday celebration. Again, Lourdes Muñoz Garcia
was
present and again she was attired in her shorts and undershirt without
anything
beneath her shirt. He noticed that the respondent Judge and this woman
were very
sweet with one another.“He would always see Lourdes Muñoz Garcia in the office of
respondent Judge
at RTC Branch 56 almost four times every week and they would intimately
refer to
each other as ‘Daddy’ and ‘Mommy.’“At the time he testified in this investigation on September
14, 1999,
Angelito Dispo stated that respondent Judge lives in Barangay Gabon,
Calasiao,
Pangasinan with Lourdes Muñoz Garcia and the latter’s daughter.“On September 3, 1999, respondent Judge went to Angelito
Dispo’s house and
told him not to testify against him (Judge) in this case. Angelito had
this
incident recorded in the police blotter (Exhibit “B”).“Engr. Librado C. Moises took up
the tale and testified that
sometime in December 1997, he went to the house of respondent Judge in
Gabon,
Calasiao, Pangasinan to attend a party held there in honor of some
sisters of
respondent Judge who had just arrived from the United States. He was
with some
court personnel as Clerk of Court Atty. Omega Lacandola Moises is his
wife. At
the party, it was Lourdes Muñoz Garcia, attired in a housedress, who wasattending to their needs and serving as hostess for respondent Judge.
When they
left, Lourdes Muñoz Garcia stayed behind.“Manuel Marquez testified that
while he was in the employ of
the Central Pangasinan Electric Company from 1995 to 1998, he would
often visit
his wife, complainant Cynthia Marquez, in the court where she was
working and he
would see respondent Judge singing and dancing with some of his female
staff as
early as 3:00 or 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon for as many as 4 times a
month.
Pointing to the picture marked Exhibit “A” and Exhibit “1,” he described
that
the benches were moved towards the table of the Presiding Judge in the
courtroom
thus creating more space for their dancing.“As stenographer of RTC Branch 57 in San Carlos City,
complainant
Shielah Ramos stated that she has known
respondent Judge since
1989 when she first entered the court’s employ. Since 1996 she has seen
respondent Judge and Lourdes Muñoz Garcia together both in the old
building
housing the courtrooms as well as in the new Justice Hall. She would see
them
eat their meals together at lunchtime and go home together after office
hours.
During the singing and dancing sessions conducted by respondent Judge in
the
courtrooms almost everyday and during special occasions, Lourdes Garcia
would
always be with respondent Judge.“Sometime in January 1998, she saw them together at respondent
Judge’s rented
house in Gabon, Calasiao, Pangasinan. Respondent Judge was with his dog
while
Lourdes Garcia was dusting his car. Confronted with pictures of the
rented
house, the two cars and the dog (Exhibits “3-A” to “3-C”), Shielah Ramos
pointed
to the new car as the one being dusted by Lourdes Garcia when she
happened to
pass by.“Atty. Leopoldo C. Tulagan, Sr.
took the witness stand and
manifested that as law practitioner with an office in San Carlos City,
he knows
respondent Judge ever since he came to preside over RTC Branch 56.
Sometime in
1995, there was what he called a ‘happy hour’ every Thursday in the
courtroom of
respondent Judge. Proceedings would be suspended and all lawyers then
appearing
would be invited to a drinking spree right in the courtroom. The lawyers
would
contribute to buy wine and finger food. There would be singing with even
the
court personnel participating. This practice stopped when respondent
Judge was
transferred to Dagupan City. However, when he returned to San Carlos
City in
1997, the drinking and singing sessions resumed. This time there was
even
dancing and these all happened sometimes once or twice a week.“On one birthday occasion of respondent Judge, a Vice-Governor
Llamas of
Tarlac was present. Two ladies were requested to give a number and they
were
both introduced as Mrs. Llamas and Mrs. Llamas, one of them was the ladycompanion of Vice-Governor Llamas and the other was Lourdes Garcia.
“When
respondent Judge went back to San Carlos City in 1997, Atty. Tulagan
often saw
Lourdes Garcia going to his courtroom for as many as five or six times a
week.
Further, on several occasions, he saw them together in respondent
Judge’s car as
the Judge would bring her to City Hall where she was employed and fetch
her
again in the afternoon.“In an earlier case filed by Atty. Antonio Resngit and
complainant Cynthia
Marquez, Atty. Tulagan executed an affidavit (Exhibit “C”) before the
National
Bureau of Investigation supporting the allegations of the complainants.“Atty. Omega Lacandola Moises,
another witness for the
complainants testified that sometime in November 1993, Lourdes Muñoz
Garcia
fetched her and together they went to respondent Judge’s house in
Karaenan, San
Carlos City. Again, during an office day in May 1994, she went to
respondent
Judge’s rented house as there was a celebration of some sort and that
was where
she had lunch. Respondent Judge had just arrived from the United States
and
Lourdes Muñoz Garcia who was also there gave her ‘pasalubong.’“On December 2, 1994, she again went to respondent Judge’s
house and had
lunch there, as it was the birthday celebration of Lourdes Muñoz Garcia.
Present
during the occasion were the relatives of Lourdes Garcia as well as her
officemates and wife of former San Carlos City Mayor Douglas Soriano.
Sometime
in June 1997, she, her husband and her brother went to respondent
Judge’s house
in Gabon, Calasiao as the latter had just arrived from another trip to
the
United States and Lourdes Muñoz Garcia was again at the house.“In December 1997, she was invited to respondent Judge’s house,
as it was the
birthday celebration of Lourdes Muñoz Garcia as well as a welcome for
respondent
Judge’s brothers, sisters, nephews and nieces who had just arrived from
the
United States for a visit. As they arrived early, Lourdes Muñoz Garcia
was still
in her housedress but she eventually changed into something suitable for
the
occasion. Pictures (Exhibits “N” and “O” also “Exhibits “18” and “19”)
of the
persons present at the occasion were presented to her and she identified
them.“Another birthday party for Lourdes Muñoz Garcia took place in
an apartment
rented by respondent Judge and Lourdes Garcia in Bonoan, Dagupan City.
Atty.
Moises together with Atty. Geraldine Baniqued and Geraldine’s husband
were in
attendance but as it was a workday, they only stayed long enough to
finish their
lunch.“On the occasion of respondent Judge’s birthday on March 29,
Lourdes Muñoz
Garcia fetched her at lunchtime and brought her to that same rented
apartment in
Bonoan. She soon left after lunch but she went “back alone, Lourdes
remaining
behind to attend to the guests of respondent Judge.“Mario Resultan testified that as
sheriff of RTC Branch 56
at San Carlos City presided by respondent Judge, he is aware and knows
that
Judge Llamas and Lourdes Garcia have been living together as husband and
wife
since 1990 up to the present. They first stayed at Valerio Hall, Mabini
Street
then they transferred to Balingit Street, followed by Kareanan Street,
all in
San Carlos City. They also stayed together in Calasiao, Pangasinan and
Dagupan
City.“In all these places of residence, Mario Resultan was usually
invited by
respondent Judge and they would drink and sing. During these sessions,
Lourdes
Garcia would always attend to their needs, sometimes in her street
clothes but
oftentimes in her house clothes.“On February 19, 1994, Mario Resultan went along with
respondent Judge to
Manila to confirm his flight as Judge Llamas was leaving for the United
States
the following day. With them on this trip were Lourdes Garcia and
respondent
Judge’s sister, Evelyn Llamas. They spent the night in the house of the
brother
of respondent Judge’s sister-in-law. He slept in the living room while
respondent Judge and Lourdes Garcia shared one room.“As he would be out of the country, respondent Judge executed a
Special Power
of Attorney in favor of Mario Resultan authorizing him to receive all
his checks
covering his salaries and allowances, encashing these and delivering the
money
to Lourdes Garcia. He did what was asked of him and each time he would
deliver
the money to Lourdes Garcia, he would indicate the dates and the amounts
in his
diary (Exhibit “P”).“Against all these evidence, respondent Judge denies the
charge.“Judge Llamas claims that complainant Cynthia Resngit Marquez
has an ax to
grind against him for objecting to her application as Legal Researcher
of his
court, RTC Branch 56, and instead endorsing Aldrin Lee who was
eventually
appointed to the position. Because he did not accede to her request,
complainant
and his father filed several charges against him ranging from immorality
to
harassment of court employees to high-handedness and arrogance. However,
these
cases were eventually dismissed by the Supreme Court (Exhibit “15”) on
motion of
complainant Cynthia Marquez and her father, Atty. Antonio Resngit
(Exhibit
“14”). But the trouble between respondent Judge and complainant did not
stop
there as could be seen in several cases filed by complainant against him
before
the Office of the Ombudsman. These cases were again dismissed (Exhibit
“20-A”).
He therefore considers this present charge as another form of harassmentemployed by complainant in her avid desire to oust him from his present
position.“Further, he denies ever drinking and dancing in his courtroom
as he claims
there are several restaurants outside the office equipped with the
necessary
facilities for his pleasure. Besides if ever he drinks with a visitor,
it was
part of his hospitable nature and it was always done after office hours.“As to the charge of immorality, he emphatically denied that he
has an
amorous relationship with Lourdes Garcia. He is a married man and his
family
lives in Dagupan City. However, he is estranged from his wife due to
irreconcilable differences in the rearing of their children. This does
not mean
however that he maintains an illicit relationship with Lourdes Garcia.
He does
admit that he knows the woman as she is an employee at the City Legal
Office and
it is her responsibility to look into the status of cases filed by San
Carlos
City pending in the courts.“Respondent Judge claims that all the testimonies of the
complainants and
their witnesses in so far as they saw him and Lourdes Garcia always
together on
several occasions, either walking side by side or riding in his car
together or
him dropping and fetching her at her place of work are all impossible
and
figments of their fertile imagination. They did not live together in all
the
places mentioned and definitely he would not be celebrating Lourdes
Garcia’s
birthdays for her in his own residence. If ever he was seen in the
company of
the woman, it was on social occasions when they would either be guests
or she
was a guest at a party he tenders.“His emphatic denial is supported by his witnesses, Lourdes
Garcia, Angelica
Muñoz, Joseph Muñoz, Gaudencio Sabangan, Benigno Abalos, Jr., Dolores
Daligdig,
Maura Doctolera, Andrew Mapanao and Rica Cabaccan.“Lourdes Garcia states that she
first knew respondent Judge
when she was detailed at the City Prosecutor’s Office and it was her
responsibility to get the court calendars for the guidance of the Court
Prosecutors.“It was Gaudencio Sabangan who introduced respondent Judge to
her formally on
November 30, 1990 during the occasion of the birthday of Normida
Sabangan,
Lourdes’s niece and Gaudencio Sabangan’s granddaughter. They were both
guests at
the party and from then on whenever they would see each other they would
engage
in casual conversations.“Aside from this, it was respondent Judge who helped her get
her permanent
appointment as Administrative Officer in the City Legal Office at San
Carlos
City. Respondent Judge being close with then Mayor Soriano, he paved the
way for
her being detailed at that office where she was given a permanent
position.“In 1993 respondent Judge asked her whether she could recommend
somebody to
do his laundry. She volunteered her mother and thus the relationship
between her
family and respondent Judge became closer. When her mother became sick
and could
not do the laundry anymore, her younger sister and brother stayed with
respondent Judge and did the household chores for him in exchange for
allowances
and tuition fee.“Lourdes Garcia further stated that she is a married woman who
has stayed all
her life in Barangay Roxas, San Carlos City except for that year in 1982
when
she went to live in Victoria, Tarlac, her husband’s place but when she
was about
to give birth, she went back to San Carlos “City and has remained there.
She
absolutely denies living with respondent Judge and states that the only
time she
went to respondent Judge’s place was when she tagged along with her
superior to
attend the party given by the Judge in honor of his nephews and nieces
who
arrived from the United States.“As for her presence at the Justice Hall, she admits going
there but her
visits are all in connection with her work and since she has a lot of
friends
there, she drops on them for a chat before going back to the City Hall
where she
has her office.“She states that she was likewise charged with immorality at
the Civil
Service Commission in May 1998 but the case was dismissed in April 1999.“Her mother Angelica Muñoz
confirms her story and states
that she did the laundry of respondent Judge but subsequently turned it
over to
her younger daughter. Also, she says that indeed her daughter Lourdes
always
stayed at their house and never lived with respondent Judge. She claims
that her
daughter is married to a soldier but admits that her son-in-law does not
stay
with his family as in fact she has not seen him for a long time now.“Amidst all these conflicting testimonies given by all those
who took part in
these very lengthy proceedings, it behooves upon the Investigating
Justice to
determine whether or not the complainants have been able to prove their
charges
against respondent Judge.“Respondent Judge is charged with Immorality and Gross
Misconduct. According
to the complainants and their witnesses, his misconduct consists in his
drinking, singing and dancing with lawyers and court personnel in his
courtroom
during office hours almost everyday.“The Investigating Justice believes that indeed respondent
Judge used his
court to indulge his drinking, singing and dancing habits to the
detriment of
the other courts within the building who were disturbed by all the noise
coming
from his courtroom. This conduct unbecoming of a Judge deserves a
reprimand but
this administrative misdemeanor may be relegated to the background in
the face
of the more serious charge of Immorality.“The complainants and their witnesses all gave positive
testimonies of how
respondent Judge flaunted his mistress in the eyes of the public.
Bringing and
picking her up from work, dancing and singing with her in public, living
with
her in different places, celebrating her birthdays with parties in her
honor,
authorizing her to receive his salaries and being seen around with her
and
behaving as if they were husband and wife are all manifestations of how
respondent Judge acted towards Lourdes Garcia as seen in the eyes of thecomplainants and their witnesses.
“What more proof would one need to show an immoral relationship
other than
these straightforward statements of the complainants and their
witnesses? Both
respondent Judge and Lourdes Garcia admit being married to other persons
but the
way they behaved in front of the public is as if they were married to
one
another.“Against these positive testimonies is respondent Judge’s
denial. But it is
axiomatic in the law of evidence that positive statements prevail over
negative
statements.“A look at the denials of respondent Judge and his witnesses
remain denials.
Although they would attempt to explain that the presence of respondent
Judge and
Lourdes Garcia together on several occasions were due to circumstances
or plain
coincidences, it would appear to the Investigating Justice that these
coincidences are one too many.“In his Memorandum, respondent Judge questions the motives of
the
complainants and their witnesses stating that all of them had something
against
him and would lie through their teeth just to oust him out of his
position.“Respondent Judge claims that the testimony of Atty. Omega
Moises Lacandola
is biased and fraught with exaggerations and distortions. He traces
Atty.
Lacandola’s prejudice against him to the fact that she was getting back
at him
for his act of filing an administrative case against Judge Bienvenido R.Estrada.
“Judge Estrada was her Presiding Judge when she was a Branch
Clerk of Court.
Now that Atty. Lacandola is the Clerk of Court, Judge Estrada is the
Executive
Judge of the Regional Trial Court in San Carlos City.“Respondent Judge claims that as Judge Estrada and Atty.
Lacandola have a
very close working relationship, the latter would go to all lengths to
destroy
him (respondent Judge) including fabricating stories against him just
because he
filed an administrative case against Judge Estrada.“This theory is too far-fetched to be believed. First, the case
filed by
respondent Judge against Judge Estrada came after this case had already
been
filed. If at all, it appears that respondent Judge in filing the case
against
Judge Estrada after this case was filed was the one who was trying to
even the
score between him and the latter.“Second, the testimony of Atty. Lacandola does not appear to be
improbable or
impossible despite what respondent Judge believes. She testified on what
she saw
and observed and she may have been hostile and stubborn at times but
this does
not mean that she was making up a story.“As far as the testimony of complainant Cynthia Marquez is
concerned,
respondent Judge in his Memorandum claims that it ‘was polluted by hate,
desire
for revenge, and for personal gain.’“It appears that respondent Judge filed an administrative case
against her
for dishonesty and falsification of daily time record in 1994 but he
himself had
it dismissed in 1995. Not only that.“Respondent Judge did not indorse Cynthia Marquez for the
position of Legal
Researcher of his court and instead recommended somebody else. Her
displeasure
at respondent Judge’s actions and her desire to get back at him
motivated
Cynthia Marquez to weave an incredible story against him.“But respondent Judge’s conclusion seems to be illogical. Since
respondent
Judge himself had the case dismissed, why would Cynthia Marquez still be
bent on
getting back at him?“In fact, it is respondent Judge himself who got back at
Cynthia Marquez by
filing another administrative case against her while this case was being
heard.
That case stemmed from the earlier case and this time respondent Judge
was
charging Cynthia Marquez with falsification of her personal data sheet
and
procuring her appointment as Interpreter under false pretenses.“As far as her non-endorsement is concerned, the Investigating
Justice
believes that this is not sufficient ground to doubt the testimony of
Cynthia
Marquez. She gave her story replete with details and events that showed
the
immoral acts of respondent Judge. If her testimony were contrived, she
would be
one great storyteller.“Respondent Judge also states in his Memorandum that the reason
why Atty.
Leopoldo C. Tulagan testified against him is because said lawyer wanted
his
pound of flesh as he lost several cases in respondent Judge’s court.
This is
incredible. Following this reasoning we will come to the conclusion that
all
lawyers who lost their cases before judges would readily testify against
them at
the expense of committing perjury. The Supreme Court would be clogged
with
administrative cases against judges filed by lawyers who take offense
for the
defeat of their cases.“All told, respondent Judge attacks all the testimonies of the
complainants
and their witnesses as improbable and motivated by ill will and desire
for
revenge. He states that they could not have seen what they claim to have
seen
because it was impossible to see through a closed window, the parking
spaces for
jeeps was not located at a place where the Justice Hall or the City Hall
could
be seen, or that goats are not butchered nor fishes cleaned a day beforecooking.
“But if we look closely at what respondent Judge calls
impossible stories,
these are minor, even inconsequential details that do not detract from
the truth
of what the complainants and their witnesses saw and testified on.“Not contented with accusing complainants and their witnesses
as telling
improbable stories, respondent Judge states that all of them were
prejudiced
against him as they all had their respective reasons for wanting to get
back at
him. This encompassing conclusion is more imagined than real. Respondent
Judge
would like to portray that he is the victim of an “elaborate plot
concocted by
the complainants to get him out of office. But using as defense this
‘delusion
of persecution’ is not enough to overthrow the persuasive and convincingevidence mounted against respondent Judge.
“Respondent Judge readily concludes the motives of complainants
and their
witnesses as suspect. But could not their motives also be the desire to
tell the
truth? Much as respondent Judge would like to portray them all as
pathological
liars, their ‘lies’ border more on the truth and appear to be more
convincing
than respondent Judge’s bare-faced denials.“As the Investigating Justice heard this case personally from
the beginning
to its conclusion, he has observed the demeanor of all those who swore
to tell
the truth and nothing but the whole truth. And while this oath may have
appeared
to be meaningless for some, it was clearly noticeable that the
complainants and
their witnesses were the ones who valued its meaning and honored their
oath to
tell the truth.“From the evidence presented, there can be no denying that
indeed respondent
Judge and Lourdes Muñoz Garcia are maintaining an illicit relationship.
The
details of such relationship are clearly and unequivocally outlined by
the
complainants and their witnesses, who have nothing to gain by pitting
themselves
against a powerful figure.“Moreover, Lourdes Garcia admitted herself that she owes her
present position
to respondent Judge who helped her secure a permanent appointment at the
City
Legal Office in San Carlos City. Why would respondent Judge do that for
her if
according to both of them they were merely casual acquaintances? What
motive
would respondent Judge have in helping her get that position were it not
for the
fact that they had an intimate relationship?“Admitting that he is estranged from his wife, respondent Judge
himself has
made possible the circumstances that could have led to his present
situation. He
may be a judge but he is still a man with the same feelings and urges as
any
other man. Lourdes Garcia is a married woman who appears to be also
estranged
from her husband as nowhere in her testimony can be seen what happened
to her
husband except for the testimony of her own mother who stated that she
never saw
her son-in-law for a long time now.“Hence, we have here a man and a woman both living away from
their respective
spouses and being thrown together has brought out in them the
fulfillment of
their desires not to be alone. True it may be human nature to feel
needed and
not be alone but in this case the man happens to be a Judge.“A judge is expected to be above himself, to transcend basic
human urges if
it is in conflict with the responsibility he swore to uphold when he
took his
oath.
“xxx xxx xxx
“In his Memorandum, respondent Judge states that he has been
previously
charged with Immorality by complainant Cynthia Marquez but she herself
had it
dismissed. Also, Lourdes Muñoz Garcia had already been charged with
immorality
before the Civil Service Commission in 1998 but the charges were
dismissed in
1999. Citing the case of Felicisimo San Luis, et. al. vs. Court of
Appeals, G.R.
No. L-80160, June 26, 1989, respondent Judge now claims that the
dismissal of
the first case against him operated as a bar to this instant case
because of res
judicata and that he would be twice in jeopardy of being convicted of
the same
offense.“The case cited by respondent Judge finds no application to his
case. The
fact that the previous charges were dismissed against both him and
Lourdes
Garcia should not be taken to mean that they have been exonerated
entirely.
Immorality is a continuing offense and the first charge should have at
least
warned him to mend his ways. But he failed to do so and now that there
is
another charge he labels it an act of persecution. Further, the
complainants and
their witnesses testified on acts of immorality of respondent Judge from
1991
until this present charge was filed in 1998. Angelito Dispo even went to
the
extent of stating that at the time he testified in this case on
September 14,
1999, respondent Judge and Lourdes Muñoz Garcia were living together
under one
roof in Barangay Gabon, Calasiao, Pangasinan.“Thus, granting that there was a previous charge of immorality
in 1994 but
was dismissed in 1995, this dismissal would only operate to absolve him
of
immoral acts until 1995. As this case was filed in 1998, it shows that
despite
the dismissal in 1995, respondent Judge continued his illicit relations
with
Lourdes Muñoz Garcia for which he faces this present charge of
Immorality.
“xxx xxx xxx
“Respondent Judge has shown that he is not worthy to don the
robe of justice
much less dispense justice when he himself transgresses the law which he
has
sworn to uphold. His blanket denial of the charges has not served to
cause a
dent in the positive evidence against him, neither has it portrayed him
an
innocent victim of malicious persecution, as he would want the
Investigating
Justice to believe.“As the evidence presented definitely shows a lack of
circumspection and
delicadeza on the part of the respondent judge in displaying before the
public
his immoral relationship, the extreme penalty of dismissal is believed
to be in
order.“Immorality is a very serious charge that cannot be penalized
by a mere fine
or even suspension, as these light penalties would be tantamount to a
tacit
approval of the immoral act.
“xxx xxx xxx
“Respondent Judge has failed to live up to these exacting
magnitude of how a
judge should behave. His disregard for common decency and morality has
made him
unfit to discharge his present position “and thus his dismissal is in
order. His
retirement benefits should likewise be forfeited but his wife who has
never
appeared on the scene should now be his saving grace against such
forfeiture.“Indeed it is the wife of Judge Llamas who is the aggrieved
party in the
infidelity of her husband but she was not the one who initiated this
complaint
nor did she participate in its prosecution. This factor should be
considered in
respondent Judge’s favor and therefore he should be spared the
forfeiture of his
earned benefits.”[4] [emphasis supplied]
Justice Brawner thus recommended that respondent Judge be
dismissed from
service but without forfeiture of his earned benefits.
In
administrative
proceedings, only substantial evidence, i.e., that amount of relevant
evidence
that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion,
is
required. We find no room to accommodate doubts on Justice Brawner’s
findings of
facts, which we find to be a result of a meticulous and dispassionate
analysis
of the testimonies of the complainants and the respondent as well as
their
respective witnesses. Thus, we adopt Justice Brawner’s recommendation of
dismissal.
The Code of Judicial Conduct mandates that a judge should be
the embodiment
of competence, integrity, and independence.[5] He should so behave at all times as
to
promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the
judiciary,[6] and
avoid impropriety and
the appearance of impropriety in all activities.[7] His personal behavior, not only
while in
the performance of official duties but also outside the court, must be
beyond
reproach, for he is, as he so aptly is perceived to be, the visible
personification of law and of justice.[8]
Regrettably, respondent Judge failed to live up to these
standards. He
brazenly flouted judicial ethics and betrayed judicial standards by
using ‘his
court to indulge his drinking, singing and dancing habits to the
detriment of
the other courts within the building who were disturbed by all the noise
coming
from his courtroom”; and, especially, by maintaining an illicit
relationship
with Lourdes Muñoz Garcia, a married woman. A judge suffers from moral
obtuseness or has a weird notion of morality in public office when he
labors
under the delusion that he can be a judge and at the same time have a
mistress
in defiance of the mores and sense of morality of the community.[9]
A judge traces a line around his official as well as personal
conduct, a
price one has to pay for occupying an exalted position in the judiciary,
beyond
which he may not freely venture.[10] No
position is more demanding as regards moral righteousness and
uprightness of any
individual than a seat on the Bench.[11]
Thus, a judge ought to live up to the strictest standard of honesty,
integrity
and uprightness. Certainly, keeping a mistress is not an act one would
expect of
a judge who is expected to posses the highest standard of morality and
decency.[12]
Respondent Judge shamelessly mocked the dignity of his office
and tainted the
image of the entire judiciary to which he owes fealty and the obligation
to keep
it at all time unsullied and worthy of the people’s trust. Respondent
Judge has
shown himself unworthy of the judicial robe and the place of honor
reserved for
the guardian of justice in a civilized community. On this occasion,
therefore,
the Court metes upon respondent Judge the severest of administrative
penalties.
He is hereby stripped of his judicial robe.
However, we are unable to agree with the reservation of Justice
Brawner on
the forfeiture of earned benefits due respondent Judge based on the fact
that
respondent Judge’s wife was not the one who initiated this complaint nor
did she
participate in its prosecution. The non-participation or non-appearance
of the
wife in the administrative proceedings for immorality is not a factor in
the
imposition of penalty. Neither should it be beneficial to respondent
Judge.
Under Section 8 of A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC amending Rule 140 of the
Rules of
Court on the Discipline of Justices and Judges, which took effect on
October 1,
2001, gross misconduct and immorality are classified as serious charges,
each of
which carry with it a penalty of either (a) dismissal from the service,
forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court may determine,
and
disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office,
including government-owned or controlled corporations. Provided,
however, that
the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave
credits; (b)
suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than
three (3)
but not exceeding six (6) months; or (c) a fine of more than P20,000.00
but not
exceeding P40,000.00.
In Carina Agarao vs. Judge Jose J. Parentela,
Jr., [13] we dismissed respondent judge on ground
of immorality and we ordered the forfeiture of one-half of all the
retirement
benefits of respondent Judge, excluding the monthly equivalent of his
accrued
leave credits.
WHEREFORE, finding respondent
Judge Victor T. Llamas, Jr.
guilty of the charge of immorality, he is hereby DISMISSED from the
service with
forfeiture of 50% of all his retirement benefits excluding any earned
leave
credits; and, with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or agency of
the
government, including government-owned and controlled corporations.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza,
Panganiban, Quisumbing,
Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio,
Austria-Martinez, and
Corona, JJ., concur. Davide, Jr., C.J.,
on official leave.
Bellosillo, J., no part. Did not take
part in deliberations.
[1] Viojan v.
Duran, 4 SCRA 390, 392
[1962]; Imbing v. Tiongson, 229 SCRA 690, 693 [1994].
[2]
Rollo, pp. 1-2.
[3]
Rollo, pp. 28-32.
[4]
Report and Recommendation, pp.
1-16, 17, 19-21.
[5] Canon
1, Rule 1.01.
[6] Code
of Judicial Conduct, Canon 2,
Rule 2.01.
[7] Code
of Judicial Conduct, Canon 2.
[8]
Agpalasin v. Agcaoili, 330 SCRA
250, 265 [2000], citing Marcelino v. Singson, Jr., 243 SCRA 685 [1995].
[9]
Leynes v. Veloso, 82 SCRA 325, 329
[1978].
[10]
Villaluz Vda. De Enriquez v.
Bautista, 331 SCRA 521, 529 [2000].
[11]
Yu-Asensi v. Villanueva, 322 SCRA
255, 266 [2000]; Vedana v. Valencia, 295 SCRA 1, 15-16 [2000].
[12] Re:
Complaint of Mrs. Rotilla A.
Marcos and her children against Judge Ferdinand J. Marcos, RTC, Br. 20,
Cebu
City, A.M. No. 97-2-53-RTC, July 6, 2001, p. 23.
[13] A.M.
No. RTJ-00-1561, promulgated
Nov. 21, 2001.