ATTY. GRACE M. VELOSO AND MA. JOEYLYNN B. QUIÑONES, COMPLAINANTS, VS. JUDGE ANACLETO M. CAMINADE, RTC, BRANCH 6, CEBU CITY, RESPONDENT.

Veloso versus Caminade

The Case

This is an administrative complaint for sexual harassment filed separately by Atty. Grace Veloso, a lawyer of the Public Attorney's Office assigned to the sala of the respondent, and Ma. Joeylynn Quiñones, a Clerk III in his office, against Judge Anacleto M. Caminade of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 6. The complainants ask the Supreme Court to discipline a sitting judge for acts of unwelcome affection committed against his female subordinates. The case matters because it fixes the standard of moral conduct demanded of magistrates and treats sexual harassment by a judge as a serious offense under the Rules of Court.

Procedural History

The two administrative complaints were consolidated and referred to then Associate Justice Conchita Carpio Morales of the Court of Appeals for investigation, report, and recommendation. In her report received by the Supreme Court in September 2002, the investigating justice found Judge Caminade guilty of violating Canon 2 and Rule 2.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Canon 3 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics, and recommended that he be suspended for six months without pay. The matter then came before the Supreme Court as an original administrative proceeding, and the Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the investigating justice.

Facts

On March 9, 2001, Atty. Veloso went to the court to check her work schedule for the following week. Judge Caminade asked her to join a conversation at the lawyer's table, and when the others rose to leave, he told her to stay because they needed to discuss a case. He then ushered her into his chambers and made her sit on a visitor's chair just a foot away from him. While discussing the case, he suddenly placed his hand on her right thigh and squeezed it, then took her hand and kissed it. She stood up and headed for the door, but he caught up with her, placed his hand on her shoulder, and said, "Kiss ko bi," meaning let me kiss you. She retorted, "Kalood nimo Judge uy," meaning you are so disgusting, Judge, and left the chambers. She later sent him a letter informing him that she would no longer appear in his court as resident PAO lawyer, and she was assigned to another branch.

For his part, Judge Caminade claimed that Atty. Veloso came to his chambers to discuss a case and to remind him of a motion filed by her father. He said that, as a gesture of appreciation, he spontaneously placed his hand on her thigh and pressed it while saying thank you, and then playfully took her hand and kissed it. He explained that he had a tendency to tease and play pranks on friends, both male and female, because of his congenial nature, but that he never had any malice or lustful designs.

Joeylynn Quiñones, Clerk III in the office of Judge Caminade, claimed that he squeezed her hand on three different occasions in February 2001 whenever she gave him case records. Although offended, she kept silent out of deference to or fear of him. On February 14, 2001, he asked her to open a jar of sugar, which he could not do because he had only one hand. Once inside his chambers, he greeted her a happy Valentine's Day, asked where she had gone the night before, and then suddenly grabbed her right hand and kissed her on the cheek. She was so shocked that she could not react, and she left the chambers and cried. From then on she avoided entering his chambers, and upon her request she was later detailed to another branch. Judge Caminade admitted pressing her hand on several occasions but insisted that these were innocent gestures and that she merely misinterpreted his actions.

Issues

• Whether or not Judge Caminade is guilty of sexual harassment and of violating the Code of Judicial Conduct.
• Whether or not his acts, described as innocent playfulness and congeniality, constitute a serious offense warranting disciplinary sanction.
• Whether or not the penalty of suspension for six months without pay is proper.

Applicable Provisions

Canon 3 of the new Code of Judicial Conduct provides:

Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in the view of the reasonable observer.

This canon sets the objective standard by which the judge's conduct is measured, not merely his own claim of innocent intent.

Canon 4 of the new Code of Judicial Conduct provides:

Judges shall avoid improprieties and the appearance of impropriety in all of their activities.

This canon reaches the judge's conduct even outside the performance of judicial duties, including his dealings with his own staff.

Section 8 of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended, provides:

A violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct is a serious offense.

This provision classifies the offense and supplies the range of penalties, including suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than three but not exceeding six months.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court found Judge Caminade guilty. Those who serve in the judiciary must not only know the law but must also possess the highest degree of integrity and probity, and an unquestionable moral uprightness both in their public and private lives. His penchant for teasing and showing unwelcome affection to women indicated a certain moral depravity and lack of respect towards his female employees, who were his subordinates and whom he should have treated like his own children. Instead, he took advantage of his superior position.

On the second issue, the Court rejected his defense of innocent playfulness. It was neither amused by his claims nor impressed by his excessive display of congeniality. He acted beyond the bounds of decency, morality, and propriety, and failed to meet the standard of conduct embodied in the Code of Judicial Conduct. His abusive and distasteful acts unmistakably constituted sexual harassment because they resulted in an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment for his female subordinates.

On the third issue, the Court held that a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct is a serious offense under Section 8 of Rule 140, and that a respondent found guilty of a serious charge may be meted dismissal, suspension for more than three but not exceeding six months, or a fine. Finding it proper to adopt the recommendation of the investigating justice, the Court imposed suspension for six months without pay.

Doctrine

A judge must comport himself at all times in such a manner that his conduct, official or otherwise, can weather the most exacting scrutiny of the public that looks up to him as the epitome of integrity and justice. Under Canon 3, his conduct must not only be above reproach but must be perceived to be so in the view of the reasonable observer, and under Canon 4 he must avoid improprieties and the appearance of impropriety in all his activities. Unwelcome physical acts by a judge against female subordinates constitute sexual harassment when they result in an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment, and such acts violate the Code of Judicial Conduct. A violation of the Code is a serious offense under Section 8 of Rule 140, punishable by dismissal, suspension for more than three but not exceeding six months, or a fine.

Disposition

The Court found Judge Caminade guilty of violating Canons 3 and 4 of the new Code of Judicial Conduct by committing sexual harassment, suspended him from office for six months without pay effective immediately, and warned that a repetition of the same offense shall be punished with dismissal from the service.

Remember This

Memorize the line that a seat in the judiciary exacts the greatest moral righteousness, so that a judge's conduct must weather the most exacting scrutiny of the public. Examiners use this case to test the objective standard of Canons 3 and 4, the treatment of sexual harassment as a serious offense under Rule 140, and the proper range of penalties for judicial misconduct.