LUALHATI M. LIWANAG, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE PATERNO H. LUSTRE, PRESIDING JUDGE, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, CALAMBA, LAGUNA, RESPONDENT.

Liwanag versus Lustre

The Case

This is an administrative complaint filed directly with the Supreme Court by Lualhati Liwanag against Judge Paterno Lustre, the presiding judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Calamba, Laguna. Liwanag accused the judge of gross immorality and grave misconduct unbecoming of his profession, alleging that he repeatedly molested her sexually while she was pursuing her husband's bouncing checks cases pending in his court. The case matters because it is the Supreme Court's own statement of how it weighs evidence in administrative proceedings against magistrates, and of the standard of conduct it exacts from every member of the bench, in public and in private life alike.

Procedural History

The complaint began as a letter sent by Liwanag to the Supreme Court in September 1995, accompanied by a sworn statement, photographs, a resort receipt, and transcripts of telephone conversations. The Court referred the matter to Judge Norberto Geraldez, the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Calamba, Laguna, for investigation, report, and recommendation, and directed the respondent to inhibit himself from the bouncing checks cases. Judge Geraldez recommended dismissal of the complaint, finding that the complainant had failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court then referred the records to the Office of the Court Administrator, which took the opposite position, found the complainant credible, and recommended dismissal from the service with forfeiture of retirement benefits. The case thus reached the Supreme Court as an original administrative matter, resolved on the records without a formal appeal.

Facts

Before July 1994, Liwanag's husband filed twelve counts of violation of the Bouncing Checks Law against three accused for checks amounting to approximately three and a half million pesos. The informations were filed in July 1994 and assigned to the Municipal Trial Court of Calamba, Laguna, presided over by Judge Lustre. The accused posted bail, but their arraignment was postponed several times at their instance.

In November 1994, Liwanag went to the judge's chamber to ask why the accused had not yet been arraigned and to request monthly hearings. He told her to return after the December hearing, early in the morning, in his chamber. When she did, he handed her an order and, as he did so, touched her shoulder and then her breast. She did not return before the January hearing. When the hearings were again postponed, she went back to him in March 1995. He told her she must obey his wishes if she wanted her case to go smoothly, since he was the only one who would decide it. They boarded his car, and while inside he kissed her on the lips and caressed her breast.

Further meetings followed in his chamber, where he kissed her, caressed her body, exposed himself, and ordered her to masturbate him. He asked her to go with him to a resort, and when she refused, he angrily reminded her that the fate of her case was in his hands. In June 1995, he fetched her from the Calamba Church in his car and brought her to the Riverview Resort and Sports Complex, where he undressed and ordered her to perform oral sex on him. The same thing happened again later that month. In August 1995, she went to his office for an order and he again kissed and touched her. She submitted photographs of herself and the respondent together, including pictures of them coming out of a room, a receipt issued by the resort, and transcripts of phone conversations. The respondent denied everything, claimed the charges were retaliation for his refusal to rush the cases and to accept an offered five percent reward, and said that at sixty seven, with a heart ailment and diabetes, sex was beyond his physical capacity.

Issues

• Whether or not the complainant's evidence is sufficient to establish the charges against the respondent in an administrative proceeding.
• Whether or not the respondent is guilty of gross misconduct warranting the administrative sanction.
• Whether or not the penalty recommended by the Office of the Court Administrator, including forfeiture of all retirement benefits, should be imposed.

Applicable Provisions

Section 5 of Rule 133 of the Revised Rules of Evidence provides:

Section 5. Substantial evidence. In cases filed before administrative or quasi-judicial bodies, a fact may be deemed established if it is supported by substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.

This is the measure of proof the Court applied, and it is why the investigating judge's demand for proof beyond reasonable doubt was the wrong yardstick.

Section 10 of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 10. The penalty of dismissal shall be imposed upon any judge guilty of serious misconduct.

The Court invoked this provision for the penalty, and then tempered it because the respondent had already retired.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that proof beyond reasonable doubt is not necessary in administrative cases; only substantial evidence is required. It found enough evidence on record. The photographs showed the complainant and the respondent together in various places, including coming out of what appeared to be a private room, and the respondent did not deny that he was the man in them. His claim that somebody else had posed was an afterthought raised almost a year after the complaint, and he never offered any plausible explanation for being seen with her there. The Court also held that the complainant's failure to testify was of no moment, since her affidavit stood in lieu of her testimony, she had re-subscribed and re-affirmed it before the investigating judge, and she could have been cross-examined on it; that she was not cross-examined was the respondent's fault, not hers.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the suggestion that the complainant's alleged ill feelings excused the respondent's wrongdoing. It reasoned that a woman would not falsely accuse a judge of sexual molestation, describing each detail, only to get back at him, for she would expose herself and her family to shame and ridicule and stand to gain nothing. It found that the respondent grossly violated his duty to uphold the integrity of the judiciary and to avoid impropriety not only in his public but in his private life as well.

On the third issue, the Court agreed with the Office of the Court Administrator that the respondent failed to live up to the high standard of conduct required of members of the bench, and that his disgraceful conduct merited sanctions even though he had already retired. But it declined to order forfeiture of all retirement benefits, because that penalty might adversely affect innocent members of his family dependent on his gratuity. It held that the maximum fine was sufficient.

Doctrine

First, in administrative proceedings against judges, the required quantum of proof is substantial evidence, not proof beyond reasonable doubt, as Section 5 of Rule 133 states. Second, judges must avoid impropriety not only in their public duties but in their private lives as well, for any act that erodes public faith in the judiciary is condemned. Third, the affidavit of a complainant may stand in lieu of her testimony where she has re-subscribed and re-affirmed it, and the respondent's failure to cross-examine her cannot be charged against her. Fourth, serious misconduct merits the penalty of dismissal under Section 10 of Rule 140, but where the judge has already retired, a fine in the maximum amount may be imposed instead, and forfeiture of retirement benefits may be withheld where innocent family members would suffer.

Disposition

The Court found the respondent guilty of gross misconduct and, since he had already retired and could no longer be dismissed or suspended, imposed on him a fine of 40,000 pesos to be deducted from his retirement benefits, and barred him from any employment in all branches of the government, including government-owned and controlled corporations.

Remember This

Remember the line that administrative cases against judges need only substantial evidence, and that a judge's impropriety in private life is still a violation of his duty to the judiciary. Examiners use this case to test the quantum of proof in administrative proceedings and the penalty where the erring judge has already retired.