ATTY. DAVID G. OMPOC, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE NORITO E. TORRES, RESPONDENT.

In his First Indorsement dated 9 September 1986,^[1]
Mr. Ramon J. Liwag,
Service Chief, Technical Staff, Ministry of Justice (now Department of Justice) referred to the Court
Administrator a sworn letter complaint dated 18 June 1986 of Atty.
David G. Ompoc
against Judge Norito E. Torres.

The letter-complaint charged respondent Judge with gross
misconduct in office, stating, among other things, that “Judge Norito Torres is wanting of [sic] that degree of moral
fiber required of a member of a judiciary. 
He is unfit to hold such an exalted position and his removal from such
will pave the way to cleanse the judiciary of the corrupt and graft-prone
judges.”^[2]
Details of the complaint read as follows:

“A civil case no. R-26374 for ejectment
entitled, Marcos A. Escobar, plaintiff versus Deco Sales, defendant, was filed
sometime in 1984 with the City Court of Cebu.  After the usual raffle it was assigned to
Judge Norito Torres, Branch VII.  While the case was being tried on the merits,
at one time he invited me to see him at his residence at Banawa,
Cebu City
and he instructed me to bring my client, Mr. Charlie Taguiam,
proprietor of Deco Sales along with me. 
That meeting at the residence
of Judge Torres was actually held with me and Mr. Taguiam
present, and in the
course of  our intimate conversation he
gave us a guide what evidence and argument we have to present.  Also in that meeting Judge Torres
requested Mr. Charlie Taguiam, who is engage (sic) in
the business of Car Decor to install a brand new airconditioner on his Toyota Hi-Ace and said airconditioner
was installed without Judge Norito Torres paying for
it.

As the ejectment case progressed Judge
Norito Torres had been pestering my client Mr.
Charlie Taguiam with request for loans which he
never acknowledged by means of a receipt and he was given by my client sums of money totalling Twenty Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) in
various amounts and on different dates. 
These loans have never been paid up to now and this certainly will not be paid to the
end of time because Judge Norito Torres is smart
enough not to sign anything.  Before
he pinned (sic) his decision on May 2, 1986, xerox
copy is hereto attached Annex A, Judge Torres called my client and pressured
him to enter into an amicable settlement with the plaintiff by paying the back
rentals amounting to Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00) because he
may have entered into an
agreement with the plaintiff in the division of the spoils just in case my
client would accede to it.  My client
refused to enter into any kind of settlement because he believed in the
justness of his cause.”^[3]

In a Resolution dated 2
October 1986, the
Court required the respondent Judge to file his comments on the complaint.  Upon consideration of the comment dated 4
November 1986 of
respondent, the Court, by a Resolution dated 3 March 1987, resolved to refer the complaint
to then Executive Judge Juanito Bernad
(now Deputy Court Administrator of the Supreme Court), Regional Trial Court, Cebu, for investigation, report and
recommendation.

Immediately after he
received the order, the Investiga­ting Judge conducted hearings on the
complaint on March 25, 27 and 31, 1987; April 8, 13, 15, 20, 22 and 30, 1987;
and May 4 and 14, and 31, 1987.

In a Report and
Recommendation dated 23 June 1987, Investigating Judge found that respondent
Judge Norito Torres then Presiding Judge of MTCC,
Branch 7, Cebu City, had before him an ejectment case entitled Marcos A. Escobar v. Deco Sales (or
Charlie Taguiam) docketed as Civil Case No. R-26374;
that while the case was ongoing, Judge Torres invited counsel for defendant
Deco Sales and the owner of Deco Sales, Mr. Charlie Taguiam,
to see him at his (the Judge’s) residence for a conference; that the conference
turned out to be an out-of-chambers discussion of Civil Case No. R-26374 where
Judge Torres advised them on the steps to be undertaken in order to win the case and at the same time, requested Mr. Taguiam
to have a new air-conditioner on his Toyota Hi-Ace installed; that
subsequently, Judge Torres borrowed from Mr. Taguiam
a total amount of P8,000.00 on different dates; that in the end, Mr. Taguiam lost in Civil Case No. R-26374 because he refused
to listen to Judge Torres’ advice to settle the case amicably by paying plaintiff Marcos Escobar the amount of
P200,000.00 allegedly representing back rentals.

The Report of the
Investigating Judge reads in part as follows:

“(1) that the respondent Judge Norito
E. Torres MTCC Cebu, City Branch VII was, like all other judges and fiscals in Central Visayas the object of background investigation conducted by
the NBI, Regional Office, Cebu City in connection
with the judiciary reorganization of 1986, after the assumption to office of
President Aquino (Exh. ‘E’,
p. 90 record);

(2)  that the agent assigned
to conduct said investigation on respondent 
was Senior Agent Ramon Barot, Jr. (Exhs. ‘D’ and ‘D-1’, p. 89 ibid);

(3)  that in connection with
said investigation Agent Barot elicited documentary
and testimonial evidence incriminatory to the respondent from the respondent’s janitor Mr. Paterno
H. Rafols who executed on 24 June 1986 a sworn statement (Exh. ‘A’, pp. 84-85, record) who stated that in addition to
his duties as janitor to Branch VII, he
also did errands for the respondent and one
of those errands was being sent by the respondent to Mr. Charlie Taguiam on 24 December 1985 to receive P5,000.00 which was in the form (to the mind of this investigator was
not anticipated by the respondent) of
City Trust Bank Check No. 181384 dated 24 December 1985 (Exh. ‘B’,
p. 86, ibid);

(4)  that janitor Rafols, without realizing the implications of
receiving a check from a party to a case for the judge, cashed it with drawee  bank by
indorsing the check at the back thereof, received the cash P5,000.00 and delivered it to the judge without telling the latter that he
received a check, no
evidence that janitor Rafols told the judge having been offered;

(5)  that at the time Exhibit
‘B’ was received by the respondent’s janitor, Mr. Charlie Taguiam
and/or Deco Sales was a party defendant in Civil Case No. R-26374 for Ejectment with a Prayer for A Writ of Preliminary
Attachment then pending at the sala of the
respondent, decision thereof dated May
2, 1986 (p. 5, ibid);

(6)  that on 27 December 1985 respondent’s
janitor again received from Charlie Taguiam for the
judge Consolidated Bank and Trust Corporation (Tabo-an
Branch, Cebu
City) Check No. A 32-186586 dated December 27, 1985 for the amount of P3,000.00 (Exh.
‘B-1’, p. 87, ibid) which he encashed and the
proceeds thereof delivered to the respondent;

xxx                            xxx                               xxx

The facts noted in the aforestated observations
have been admitted by the respondent except our own conclusions on the facts
that the respondent was unaware of the existence of those checks received and
indorsed by his janitor and the unanticipated background checks because
being a former agent of the NBI, he would have known better than to leave tell-tale evidence.

The receipt of the checks for the respondent and the amounts
corresponding thereto were confirmed not only by court janitor Rafols but also by Mr. Charlie Taguiam
himself who took the witness
stand not as an avenging
witness desiring vengeance but appeared merely in obedience to the subpoena
issued by this investigator in
his capacity as Executive Judge
(p. 71, record).

The existence and authenticity of said photocopies (Exh. ‘B’, ‘B-1’) were established by the testimony of
Senior Agent Ramon Barot Jr. who likewise testified
and identified the photocopies comparing them with the originals and microfilm
presented during the hearing and found by the undersigned to be faithful
reproductions.

Charlie Taguiam testified that those
amounts (Exh. ‘B’ for P5,000.00 and Exh. ‘B-1’ for P3,000.00 were loans requested by the respondent judge from him
during the  pendency
of his case but  were not receipted by
the respondent and were never paid; that he did not demand any receipt 
because the respondent was and still is a judge that he could not
bring himself to demand receipts from the respondent but impliedly would have welcomed, if not
wished to be paid, notwith­standing the pendency of
his case then at the respondent’s sala at the time
the loans were asked;

That Charlie Taguiam while testifying did not show or
betray any trace of revenge against the judge whom he gave so much attention
and expense (the improvements on
the respondent’s vehicle will be
discussed later) in spite of losing his case after so much expectation of a
victory somewhat anticipated not only by his belief on the merits of his case
but also by the respondent’s seemingly encouraging attitude in the request and
acceptance of favors other than the uncontrollable tears rolling down his
cheeks remembering the past, losing the case and in having to
compromise his case for P200,000.00 at the RTC of Cebu
City at his aged and sick
mother’s behest, who had suffered a stroke as a result of said litigation, near
bankruptcy, him without a father and having to revive and resuscitate the
business as the eldest in the family at that stage of near bankruptcy.

xxx                            xxx                               xxx”^[4]

Respondent tried to
account for the checks that were submitted in evidence through a strange,
involved story concerning an alleged entrepreneurial effort on the part of some
of his townmates to raise money. 
The Investigating Judge
found the respondent’s and his witnesses’ stories as unworthy of credence:

“Indeed, it is taxing one’s imagination to lend credence to the
fantastic theory of the defense that to summarize briefly, a Municipal judge will raise
P50,000.00 in cold cash from a friend (Mr. Amodia)
in a matter of a day’s
time, without signing any note
or giving any collateral for it,
nor the latter demanding any memorandum thereof and giving it to another friend (Mr. Amistad) without
again any promissory note, memorandum or collateral but merely on
a verbal promise of 50% share in the profit plus legal interest of a
considerable amount such as P50,000.00
in 3 month’s time;

That when the 3 months was up, the alleged lender (Amodia) called the judge (Torres) to remind him of the
money and the latter reminding the borrower, who allegedly issued a P25,000.00 check (which was never produced in evidence giving the
impression to the undersigned that there was never a check), delivered it to
the judge who grudgingly acceded to his interpreter’s (Mr. Malig-on) moral perorations that there was nothing wrong with asking a
litigant to encash a post-dated check for P25,000.00
which was allegedly honored for only P5,000.00
and which amount was gladly accepted by the lender for the  P25,000.00 check paid to him;

That to the undersigned, it is not credible that a man with P25,000.00 check in his favor paid by his debtor, would entrust
the encashment of the same to the
janitor of the judge rather than for him to do it himself after the judge and
Mr. Taguiam had talked on the telephone;

That the lender of P50,000.00 cold cash would accept P5,000.00
for a P25,000.00 check without a whimper and still tipped the janitor
P100.00; that for another P25,000.00 check of the borrower dated January 7, 1985 (Exh.
‘2’) when the first payment was made on December 31, 1985, was supposed to have
been a mistaken date because the alleged true date was January 7, 1986 and a chinese businessman like Mr. Taguiam
will honor it (wrong date and all) for P3,000.00 and the
lender (Amodia) will
accept P3,000.00 for P25,000.00 check again without a whimper?

Such was the story unraveled by the respondent and his witnesses in
his defense on the checks.  No
documentation whatsoever was presented for such a transaction involving
P50,000.00 supposedly in cold cash except for a worthless check with an alleged
wrong date (Exh. ‘2’) and supposedly bearing the
date of January 7, 1986 but actually dated January 7, 1985 which Mr. Taguiam peremptorily
dismissed as having
nothing to do with the transaction in question for it was indeed a worthless check which was presented to him for payment by the
respondent judge which he
refused and after depositing, it bounced and returned by Taguiam
and was forgotten.”^[5]

From the evidence submitted to him, the Investigating Judge
reached the following conclusions:

“The undersigned is convinced that, on the basis of the
testimonial and documentary evidence offered and admitted on both sides, the respondent
judge failed to rebut successfully the evidence of the complainant on the check
charges.

As to the charges re the “Light Ace” van, respondent
admitted the ownership originally by him and later by his wife of said vehicle
(Exhs. ‘3’ and ‘4’); admitted that complainant and
client Taguiam went to his residence to talk about
the case which he entertained; admitted sending his vehicle to defendant’s shop
for repair on seats, new seat
covers furnished by the defendant, repairs on his sedan, all for free during
the pendency of the case on the shop owner’s (Taguiam) assurance that the materials used were extra
remnants from repairs of other customers and inconsequential.

Respondent denies the installation of an airconditioner
but the way Mr. Taguiam testified about it, where it
was installed (ceiling of the van), his sincerity in testifying along with the
admission of respondent in having sent for his van with his driver to the
defendant’s (Taguiam) shop for the repairs which he
himself (respondent) estimated to have cost P350.00 or more (a conservative estimate on the basis of the
description of the improvements introduced) and even offered to pay now if
owner Taguiam will accept even in the absence of
invoices of the cost of the aircon and other
materials, a strong conviction that the complainant’s allegations, including
the installation of the aircon in respondent’s van,
are true.

Other than the aircon which Taguiam offered to 
respondent at a 50% discount from the original cost of P10,000.00 (brand
new), he really had no intention to be paid for the minor repairs and improvements.  He had really given them away to the judge.

xxx                xxx                   xxx.”^[6]

While he found the
charges against respondent Judge to have been proven, the Investigating Judge
refrained from making a recommendation on the appropriate administrative
penalty for respondent.

After having carefully
examined the records in this case, the Court is convinced that respondent Judge did commit the acts with
which he was charged.  In receiving P5,000.00 and P3,000.00 from a party to a litigation before him, as loans
which he never paid back and which to all appearances he never intended
to pay back, and in refusing or failing to pay for an airconditioner
installed in his wife’s automobile van by a shop owned by a party litigant before him, respondent Judge is guilty of serious misconduct
in office and of acts unbecoming a
member of the judiciary.

This Court cannot too
strongly deplore and denounce the gross misconduct of respondent Judge.  In Haw Tay
v. Singayao,^[7]
the Court, in holding a judge guilty of
serious misconduct in office and
his dismissal warranted (had his
resignation not already been accepted by the President), upon finding that he
had demanded and received money from a party litigant said:

“It is this kind of gross and flaunting misconduct on the part
of those who are charged with the responsibility of administering the law and
rendering justice that so quickly and surely corrodes the respect for law and
the courts without which government
cannot continue and that tears apart the very bonds of our polity.”^[8]

Again,
in the case of Cabrera v. Pajares,^[9] the Court dismissed respondent Judge from
the service, having found him guilty of accepting money from a
party litigant in a case before his sala knowing
that the amount was given to him by reason of his office, stressed:

“Members of the judiciary should display not only the highest integrity but must at all times
conduct themselves in such manner as to be beyond reproach and suspicion.  (Quiz vs.
Cantaño, 107 SCRA 196; Montemayor
vs. Collado, 107 SCRA 258) The Court had likewise
stressed in De la Paz vs. Inutan (64 SCRA 540) that
‘the judge is the visible representation of the law and, more importantly of
justice.  From him, the people draw their will and
awareness to obey the law.  They see in him an intermediary of justice
between two conflicting interests, x x x.  Thus, for the
judge to return that regard, he must be the first to abide by the law and weave
an example for the others to
follow.  He should be studiously careful
to avoid even the slightest infraction of the law.’ (See also Fonacier-Abaño v. Ancheta, 107 SCRA 538).”^[10]

ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to DISMISS respondent
Judge from the service, with forfeiture of all his
accrued retirement benefits, leave and other privileges, if any, and with
prejudice to re-employment in any branch, agency or instrumentality of
the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.

The Court also Resolved
to REQUIRE respondent to show cause within ten (10) days from receipt of this Resolution why he should not be
DISBARRED for gross professional misconduct and violation of the attorney’s
oath, consisting of the same acts of which he has here been found to be guilty.

Let a copy of this
Resolution be furnished the Ombudsman, for appropriate action on the probable
violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act by the respondent Norito E. Torres, with the request that the Court be
informed of the action taken.

A copy of this Resolution
shall also be forwarded to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for its information and records.

Fernan, C.J., Narvasa,
Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padillla, Bidin, Sarmiento, Cortes, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea, and Regalado, JJ., concur.

^[1]Rollo, p. 1.

^[2]
Id., p. 3.

^[3]
Id., pp. 2-3; underscoring supplied.

^[4]
Rollo, pp. 147–149; underscoring supplied.

^[5]
Decision/Report and Recommendation, Rollo, pp.
150-151; underscoring supplied.

^[6]
Rollo, pp. 151-152; underscoring supplied.

^[7]
154 SCRA 107 (1987).

^[8]
154 SCRA at p. 112.

^[9]
142 SCRA 127 (1986).

^[10]
142 SCRA at 135.