DR. NORBERT L. ALFONSO, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE MODESTO C. JUANSON, BRANCH 30, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA, RESPONDENT.

On 15 September 1992, the complainant, a doctor of medicine by
profession, filed with this Court a sworn complaint charging the respondent
with immorality and violation of the Code of Judicial Ethics. He accuses the respondent of maintaining
illicit sexual relations with his wife, Sol Dinglasan Alfonso. The complainant and his wife were married on
10 December 1988 and their union bore them three children, all boys, ages 3
years old, 2 years old, and 4 months old, respectively. He alleges that their married life was
peaceful and happy until the discovery of the sordid affair, which came about
in this manner:

Sometime in February 1991, the complainant received a phone call
from the wife of the respondent who informed him that Sol and her husband
(respondent) have been carrying on an affair and that she has in her possession
the love letters of Sol which she wants to show to the complainant. Although he did not believe the information
and even berated Mrs. Juanson for trying to ruin his family, he, nevertheless,
told Sol about it. Sol assured him of
her love and concern for their family and claimed that the respondent was just
a client of her former office, the Banco Filipino (EDSA Cubao Branch). Two weeks later, Mrs. Juanson called him
again to inquire if he had received the photocopies of Sol’s love letters to
the respondent. He again scolded Mrs.
Juanson and told her not to call him up anymore. On 12 June 1992, he and Sol left for the United States of America
(USA) for a vacation. He stayed there
up to 19 July 1992; however, Sol returned ahead of him on 10 July 1992. During his absence, specifically on 17 June
1992, Mrs. Juanson called up his father, Atty. Norberto Alfonso, and divulged
to the latter the illicit affair between the respondent and Sol. On 20 June 1992, Mrs. Juanson sent to Atty.
Alfonso photocopies of Sol’s love letters to the respondent. During their pre-arranged meeting on 25 June
1992, Mrs. Juanson delivered the original copies of Sol’s alleged love letters
to Atty. Alfonso who was accompanied by the complainant’s sister, Celestine A.
Barreto.

When Sol arrived in the Philippines on 10 July 1992, Atty.
Alfonso decided to hire a private investigating agency to undertake an inquiry
on the alleged illicit affair between Sol and the respondent. Through surveillance conducted by its
private investigators, the agency found out that Sol had met with the
respondent on 11 and 17 July 1992 at Unit 412-A of Citihomes at 130 San
Francisco St., Mandaluyong, Metro Manila, and that they stayed inside the unit
for two to three hours.

Complainant further alleges that on 25 July 1992, five days after
his arrival from the USA, his sister Celestine told him about the illicit
relationship between Sol and the respondent. Celestine showed him the pictures taken by the private investigators and
the alleged love letters of Sol. In the
evening of the said date, in the presence of their respective parents, the
complainant confronted Sol and showed her the proofs; Sol still denied the
affair and insisted that she was just discussing some business with the
respondent. Later, however, at about
1:30 a.m. in their house, Sol finally admitted to having an illicit sexual
affair with the respondent since late 1983 when she was an employee of Banco
Filipino (EDSA Cubao Branch) and that before they left for the USA, she met the
respondent at Unit 412-A Citihomes.

As a result of this revelation, the complainant sent his wife out
of the house. He and Sol have been
living separately since 26 July 1992. He also subsequently discovered from the statement of billing from
Pacific Bell for overseas calls which he and Sol made while they were in the
USA that on 17 and 25 June 1992 Sol had made calls to the respondent’s office
at the Manila Regional Trial Court.

Complainant submits that the respondent is undeserving of the
noble office of the judiciary and prays that he be meted the appropriate
administrative sanction for immorality and violation of the Code of Judicial
Ethics.

In compliance with this Court’s Resolution of 22 October 1992,
the respondent filed his Comment on 21 December 1992. He admits that he knows Sol and that “they have been
communicating with each other casually and innocently,” but denies that
they are lovers and were having an illicit affair, that Sol has been sending
love letters to him, and that, except for the 11 and 17 July 1992 meetings, he
and Sol had been going to the apartment situated at 130 San Francisco St.,
Mandaluyong, Metro Manila, and staying there for hours. He asserts that he came to know Sol sometime
in 1987 when she engaged his
professional services in connection with five criminal cases filed by her in
the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Rizal and in the Regional Trial
Court of Pasig. In the course of their
attorney-client relationship, Sol sought legal advice from him and during those
occasions they usually talked over the phone and not in the office. In June 1992, he received an overseas call
from Sol who was then in the USA. Sol
asked for advice concerning her problem with her employer, the Security Bank
and Trust Co. (Dau Central Branch). They agreed that Sol would see him upon her return to the
Philippines. On 11 July 1992, shortly
after her arrival from the USA, he and Sol met at the aforementioned apartment,
which was leased not by the respondent but by Celestino Esteban. After discussing her problem, with Celestino
and two other persons present, he and Sol left the apartment and took a late
lunch at Fastfood, Robinson. He
reassures the complainant “that his wife has always been faithful to him
and that he would do nothing as would tarnish their warm relationship, much
less destroy complainant’s family.”

On 4 May 1993, the Court referred the case to Associate Justice
Lourdes T. Jaguros of the Court of Appeals for investigation, report and
recommendation.

Justice Jaguros conducted a full-blown investigation. At the hearings on 17, 18, 21 and 29 of June
1993 and 6, 8, 9 and 12 of July 1993, the parties submitted testimonial and
documentary evidence. On 4 October
1993, she submitted her Report and Recommendation dated 30 September 1993. Pertinent portions of her findings of facts
read as follows:

“As culled from the evidence of this case, Complainant Dr.
Norbert L. Alfonso and Sol Dinglasan were married at the Sta. Ana Catholic
Church on December 10, 1988 as
evidenced by a marriage contract (Exh. “N”). Three children were born of this
marriage. John Jason, three (3) years
old, Jan Norbert, two (2) years old, and the youngest Jan Joseph, four (4)
months old. Complainant and his family
lived a happy and normal life with their Sundays spent on outings after the
Sunday mass. (p. 9, tsn, June 29,
1993).

In February, 1991, Complainant received phone calls from a woman
introducing herself as a concerned friend telling that complainant’s wife is
having an illicit affair with her said woman caller’s husband. Said caller did not identify herself but
only said she was in possession of love letters of complainant’s wife Sol to
said caller’s husband. After two weeks,
said ‘concerned friend’ called up the Complainant again to ask him if he had
received said caller’s registered mail. Complainant after both calls asked his wife Sol about her having an
affair with another man, and in both instances, Sol assured him of her
love. Then the calls stopped for the
rest of the year 1991 and early part of 1992 although Complainant noticed that
his wife Sol used to go out alone every Saturday.

On June 12, 1992, Complainant and his wife Sol went to U.S.A. for a
vacation but the latter decided to return to Manila ahead of the former on July
10, 1992 (Exh. “O”). Complainant followed in returning home only on July 19, 1992 (Exh.
“O-1”).

On July 25, 1992, Complainant was invited by his father, Atty.
Norberto Alfonso to his sister Celestine Barreto’s house, and there his father
showed him five (5) loveletters written by Complainant’s wife Sol with
envelopes addressed to Atty. Modesto C. Juanson (Exhs. “A” to
“E” and submarking), and pictures taken by private investigators of
Complainant’s wife and respondent Judge in company of each other (Exhs.
“F-5” to “F-22”, “G-2” to “G-14”). Complainant recognized the handwriting of
his wife Sol in said love letters, specifically the GAIN memo pad paper used by
Sol in her love letter (Exh. “D”) which is a prescription pad of
Complainant to his patients. Likewise,
in the pictures, Complainant recognized his wife Sol holding a
“Payless” bag (Exh. “F-6”) with the Respondent Judge
holding the same bag later on (Exh. “F?14”). In practically all the pictures, Complainant
identified his wife Sol and Respondent Judge. The Respondent Judge was no stranger to Complainant as the latter knows
said Judge personally. Said Judge is
one of the best friends of Complainant’s parents-in-­law and was even a sponsor
in the wedding of Complainant’s sister-in-law. Both Complainant and Respondent Judge had met thrice and talked with
each other.

The five love letters, including a picture of the Respondent Judge
(Exh. “K”) were handed to Complainant’s father, Atty. Norberto
Alfonso by a lady who introduced herself, as Mrs. Ceferina Juanson in the
presence of Complainant’s sister, Celestine Barreto. The three met at the front entrance of the Sto. Domingo Church,
Quezon Boulevard, Quezon City and proceeded to the City Diners Restaurant in
the same city where the three had a talk and where Mrs. Juanson handed to Atty.
Alfonso the five love letters with a picture, at about 10:30 to 11:30 a.m. in
late June 1992. Prior to said meeting
on June 17, 1992, at about 11:00 a.m. a “concerned woman” had called
up Atty. Alfonso at his home and in the vernacular had said “Tinataihan
ang ulo ng anak mo ng babaeng iyan” referring to Complainant’s wife. To clear Atty. Alfonso’s doubt, the woman
promised to send proofs which Atty. Alfonso received by LBC in a parcel
containing the xerox copies of Complainant’s wife’s love letters to Atty.
Modesto C. Juanson.

After the meeting with the lady who identified herself as Mrs.
Ceferina Juanson, Atty. Alfonso got an overseas call from Complainant that his wife Sol was coming
home to Manila earlier so that Atty. Alfonso engaged the services of a private
investigating agency, Truth Verifier System, Inc., to conduct surveillance of
the activities of Complainant’s wife, Sol upon her arrival from the U.S.A. Sol Alfonso did arrive on July 10, 1992, and on July 11 and
17, 1992, the Truth Verifier System Inc.
through Marjorie Juinio and Edgardo Tamayo, licensed private detectives
conducted surveillance operation on Mrs. Sol Dinglasan and respondent Judge
Modesto Juanson. On said date of July
17, 1992, said private detectives together with Raymond Tabangcura and Edgar
Naquila, saw, Sol Dinglasan Alfonso go out of her house carrying a bag, take a
tricycle and alight at Lamayan St., walk towards Sta. Ana Church then board a
taxicab. Following said taxicab, the
taxi stopped at City Homes, San Francisco Street, Mandaluyong, Metro
Manila. Sol went inside Unit 412-A
Citihomes, and stayed inside for about three hours. Respondent Judge Modesto Juanson came out first of said unit,
wearing blue walking shorts and light colored polo and carrying the plastic bag
which Sol was seen carrying earlier, and then followed by Sol. At around 1:00 p.m., the Respondent Judge
and Sol were inside said Respondent’s Wrangler jeep on their way to Robinson
Galeria at EDSA. The two ate at
Mongolian Restaurant and at Gusto Unico, then they proceeded to Robinson’s
Supermarket. Inside the supermarket,
Marjorie Juinio saw the Respondent Judge put his arm on the shoulder of Sol,
and they were also seen holding hands (pp. 23-26, tsn, June 21, 1993). Then the two, Respondent Judge and Sol
boarded the Wrangler jeep. At about
3:45 p.m., Sol alighted at the corner of Suter and Roxas Streets and then
boarded a tricycle while the jeep left. The formal report of the Truth and Verifier System, Inc. has been
offered by Complainant as Exhibit “F-1” to “F-4” while the
many pictures taken of Respondent Judge and Sol were marked and offered as Exhibits
“F-5” to “F-22”.

The other team of the Truth Verifier System, Inc. led by Edgardo
Tamayo practically corroborated the findings of the Marjorie Juinio team. A formal report marked and offered as
Exhibit “G” to “G-1”, and pictures taken of Respondent
Judge and Complainant’s wife Sol marked and offered as Exhibits “G-2”
to “G-14” were presented before the Investigator.

Five days after the arrival of Complainant Dr. Norbert L. Alfonso,
he was invited by his father, Atty. Norberto Alfonso to Norbert’s sister’s
house in San Juan, Metro Manila. In the
house of Celestine Alfonso Barreto, Atty. Alfonso showed his son, Norbert the
love letters written by his wife Sol to Respondent Judge (Exhs. “A”
to “E”). Complainant
recognized the handwritings of his wife Sol and even the GAIN memo stationery
which Complainant was using as his prescription pad for his patients (Exh.
“D”). He recognized his wife
Sol and Respondent Judge in the pictures taken by the private detectives. On said day, Complainant Norbert Alfonso
experienced the greatest shock of his life and wondered what happened to his
life. His father, Atty. Alfonso,
however, advised him not to hurt his wife Sol. In that same party, Complainant showed Sol the pictures and the
loveletters which made Sol turn pale and stammer when talking. Sol’s own parents were embarrassed and walked
out of the party.

On the same night at about 10 in the evening, Complainant Dr.
Norbert Alfonso confronted his wife Sol as to the truth of her relationship
with Respondent Judge. Before the
Investigator said Complainant made the following testimony on direct
examination:

x x x

ATTY. DEMIGILLO:

Q    What else did your wife
tell you during that confrontation, her
exact words?

x x x

A     She
took a deep breath again and told me, ‘Sweetheart, I am very, very, very sorry,
I made a mistake.’ I asked, ‘What mistake is that?’ She replied, ‘I had sexual
intercourse with the Judge.’

x x x

Q    What
else, if any, happened during that confrontation?

A     I
asked my wife ‘How many times did you have sexual intercourse with the Judge’?

Q    Was
there any response?

A     She
answered five times and then right away I said, ‘Putangina mo, five times
lang. Alam mo ba kung ilang beses
kitang naganyan? Tarantado ka.’ With my
voice not so loud because the door and the windows were opened. If I shout the neighbors will hear and then
the yayas will go down right away.

Q    What
was your wife doing at that time?

A     My
wife was crying and saying, ‘Sweetheart, I am very, very sorry. Forgive me.’ She was kneeling before me and begging
forgiveness. ‘Forgive me, sweetheart, I love you.’

I told my wife, ‘you do
not love me, you love your stupid Judge.’

Q    Is
there anything else that you discussed during that confrontation aside from the
admission?

A     After
that admittance of my wife having sexual relationship with the Judge,
reminiscing the past events when we were together I told my wife, ‘That’s why
pala every Saturday umaalis ka dito. Sinong pinupuntahan mo?’ And definitely, she admitted to me, ‘To the
Judge.’ (pp. 35-41, tsn, June 29, 1993)

The confrontation between Complainant and his wife Sol ended at
about 5:00 a.m. of the following day, July 16, 1992 with Complainant asking Sol
to leave the house.

Sol also admitted to
Complainant that when she went to Hongkong on December 26, 1989 up to December
29, 1989 she was with Respondent Judge, and records of the Commission on
Immigration for said dates show that both Sol Alfonso and Respondent Judge
Modesto Juanson departed for Hongkong via Cathay Pacific plane on December 26,
1989 and returned to Manila on December 29, 1989 (Exhs. “P” and
“P-1”).

Also, Complainant received from his sister in California, U.S.A., a
Pacific Bell Statement of Telephone Calls reflecting two calls made by his wife
Sol to Manila, at numbers 632 476120. Number 632 is the country code while number 476120 is the phone number
of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 30, where Respondent Judge is the Presiding
Judge.

As of now, Complainant Dr. Norbert Alfonso and his wife Sol live
separately, and their three children are alternately in the custody of
Complainant or Sol for certain number of days.

Upon the other hand, Respondent Judge main defense is denial as he
advances the position that Sol Dinglasan Alfonso was a former client when
Respondent Judge was still a practicing lawyer, and that from time to time Sol
would consult him regarding her cases. As to the Hongkong trip, Respondent Judge simply accompanied a former
client who was looking for a house to buy in Hongkong, and as to the visit in
the Citihomes unit, Respondent Judge claimed that he was only visiting his
godson George Zari who spent a vacation in the Philippines for a month.”

Some elaboration of the respondent’s version is necessary. He is now 56 years old. (TSN, 8 July 1993, 31). He and his wife, Ceferina, were married in
1961 and have two sons. Ceferina is
eight years his senior. (TSN, 12 July
1993, 4-5). From 1967 to 1969, he was
the Chief Legal Officer in the Office of the City Mayor of Quezon City and from
1969 to 1982 he was the Second Assistant City Fiscal of Quezon City. After that and until November 1990, when he
was appointed Judge of the Regional Trial Court at Urdaneta, Pangasinan, he was
in the private practice of law. In
April 1992, he was assigned to Branch 30 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila. (TSN, 8 July 1993, 32). He first came to know Sol when she hired his
services as her counsel in six criminal cases involving dishonored checks she
filed against Santiago Maramag and Evangeline Maramag. (Id., 33-39). In 1989, he saw Sol at the
wedding of her sister
Jennifer to Romeo Dizon; he stood
as sponsor for the groom then. In June
1992, Romeo saw him at his office at the City Hall in Manila and sought advice
regarding the letter Sol had received from the Security Bank requiring her to
explain why she should not be declared absent without leave (AWOL) for leaving
her work without an approved leave of absence. He told Romeo that he would not be able to give any advice unless he saw
the letter and talked with Sol. A few
days later, he received an overseas call from Sol who said that she left the Philippines
sometime after 10 June 1992. He told
her that he could not give any written or oral advice until he read the letter
and talked with her. This overseas call
might have been the 17 June 1992 call referred to in the Pacific Bell
Statement. (Exhibit
“Q”). He was not able to talk
to her in the second overseas call referred to in Exhibit “Q.” Two or three weeks later, he received
a local call from Sol who told him that she was back and that she has the
letter. Sol begged to see him at his
office. He, however, told her that he
was busy; besides, it was already late in the afternoon. She got frantic and so he told her that they
could meet the following day at Unit 412-A, Citihomes, at 130 San Francisco
St., Mandaluyong, since he was to meet his godson, George Zari, in the said
place. They did meet there at 11:00
o’clock in the morning of the
following day — ­11 July 1992, a Saturday. Sol gave him the letter from the Security Bank and after interviewing
her he promised to prepare a draft of a “reply.” Present at that time
were Celestino Esteban, lessee of the unit who is his friend, George Zari, and
his live-in partner, Marissa. Forty-five minutes later, he decided to go home. Sol requested for a ride in his vehicle in
order to alight at the place of her
employer along EDSA and Shaw Boulevard to which he obliged. While on their way, Sol invited him for
lunch and they went to the Mongolian Restaurant at Robinson’s where they had
lunch. They had coffee nearby and then
parted ways. Thereafter, on separate
days, Sol called him by phone to ask about the draft of the reply. On the second call, he told her that since
he would meet George Zari on the 17th of July at Unit 412-A of Citihomes, she
might just as well meet him there. She
acceded and on that date he left his office at about 11:00 o’clock in the
morning and arrived at Unit 412-A thirty minutes later. (TSN, 12 July 1993, 25). Sometime after Sol arrived, he gave to her
the draft of the reply and instructed her to type the letter, date and sign it,
and then send it to her employer. He
also referred her to Atty. Lachica to whom she should henceforth communicate
because he, respondent, is busy in his office. When he was about to leave, Sol asked if she might ride in his vehicle
in order to alight at EDSA-Shaw Boulevard to which he agreed. After that he did not meet Sol again. (TSN, 9 July 1993, 3-15).

Respondent denies having gone to Hongkong with Sol on 26 December
1989 and having seen her in Hongkong. According to him, his traveling companion was Cua Sen. (Id., 16-23). Cua Sen corroborated him on this point. (TSN, 6 July 1993, 5-10). When confronted about the charge of immorality and unethical conduct for
having illicit relations with Sol, he answered: “I deny it very strongly, your Honor.” (Id., 32).

Respondent further suggests that it was impossible for him to
have sexual intercourse with Sol because he has been suffering from two
debilitating diseases — diabetes mellitus, for which he has been “taking
insulin” since 1987, and prostatitis — ­which have seriously affected his
sexual potency. In his own words, he
“could hardly make it,” and that he has “no erection
whatsoever.” (Id., 29-32; Exhibits “11” and “12”).

Justice Jaguros gives full faith and credit to the complainant’s
version for she finds no reason not to believe the complainant. According to her, “[n]o man in his
correct mind would come forward and claim that his honor and good name have
been stained by an adulterous wife, doubt the paternity of his children, and in
the process destroy his family and home.” She ruled that the testimonies
of the witnesses for the respondent — Cua Sen, Celestino Esteban and former
Judge Zari — do not inspire belief.

Justice Jaguros then concludes that the immoral conduct of the
respondent has ruined two families — his own and that of the complainant. Respondent “cannot escape from the
blame and sin of what he has caused Complainant’s once happy family.” More
pertinently she adds:

“But beyond the domestic confines of these two families, Respondent
Judge is no ordinary mortal who can live the life he pleases having two women
at the same time — ­his wife and worst [sic], another man’s wife. He is a
Judge who symbolizes the law and the highest degree of morality in the
community. The citizens look up to him
as the embodiment of justice and decency, as he decides cases brought to his court. He can be no less.”

And invoking our decision in Leynes
vs. Veloso (82 SCRA 325 [1978])
and Castillo vs. Calanog (199 SCRA 75
[1991]) as precedent and moral compass, she asserts that she has no
other alternative but to find respondent “GUILTY as charged of Immorality
and Violation of Judicial Conduct” and to recommend his “DISMISSAL x
x x from office.”

In the light of the conclusions of the Investigating Justice and
her recommendation for the imposition upon the respondent of the severest
administrative penalty — dismissal from the service — it is all the more
imperative to conduct an assiduous examination and evaluation of the records
and the evidence.

There is no doubt in our minds that a very special relationship
existed between the respondent and the complainant’s wife. For one, there are the cards or notes, which
the complainant and the
Investigating Justice described as love letters. These five “love letters” are marked as Exhibits
“A,” “B,” “C,” “D,” and “E,”
and dated 3 July 1987, 23 May 1988, 15 February 1988, 11 January 1989, and 7
March 1989, respectively. For another,
if we were to give full credit to the complainant’s testimony that during their
confrontation Sol had admitted having sexual intercourse with the respondent on
five occasions (TSN, 29 June 1993, 39-40), it would appear that the
relationship had developed into an extra-marital liaison. It was furthermore established that both Sol
and the respondent took the same flights of Cathay Pacific aircraft to Hongkong on 26 December 1989 and back
to the Philippines on 29 December 1989. There is, however, no evidence that they stayed together in the same hotel in Hongkong. On the other hand, there is the unrebutted
testimony of Mr. Cua Sen that he, a client of the respondent, was the latter’s
travelling companion.

From the foregoing, it is clear that their affair began before
Sol and the complainant were married on 10 December 1988 and might have
blossomed from the attorney-client relationship between the respondent and
Sol. Her marriage to the complainant
did not diminish Sol’s love for the respondent, for even after she committed
herself to the complainant alone and made a vow of fidelity to him till death
at the solemn ceremony of marriage, she still sneaked out her love notes to the
respondent.

It must, however, be stressed that the respondent is not charged
with immorality or misconduct committed before he was appointed to the
judiciary. As to the post-appointment
period, we find the evidence for the complainant insufficient to prove that the
respondent and Sol continued their extramarital affair. No love notes written by her after November
1990 were presented in evidence. If she
did, they could have been kept with Exhibits “A” to “E” in
some secret place which was not, however, unknown anymore to the respondent’s
wife. Sol’s admission or confession to
the complainant that she had carnal knowledge of the respondent on five
occasions made no reference to specific dates and is hearsay. In his direct examination, the complainant’s
counsel exerted no further effort to obtain clarifications as to the dates
thereof. He perhaps realized its
futility because the narration by the complainant of the information clearly
indicated that the complainant did not ask Sol to elaborate on the five illicit
sexual acts. On cross-examination,
counsel for the respondent carefully avoided any entanglement with the details
of the admission not only because it might have provided an occasion for the
complainant to elaborate thereon, but because it would have operated as a
waiver of his objection to the testimony as hearsay. The transcripts of the stenographic notes disclose that the
counsel for the respondent objected and entered a continuing objection to
questions directed to elicit or which tended to elicit statements or admissions supposedly made or given by Sol on
grounds that any such statements or admissions would be hearsay or otherwise
barred by the res inter alios acta rule. Justice Jaguros
recognized the merit of the objection; hence, she allowed the answers to be
taken merely as part of the narration but not as evidence of the truth
thereof. Thus:

“ATTY. DEMIGILLO:

Q    What
was her response to your exhortation?

A     After
a few minutes she took a deep breath and said,
“Sweetheart, patawarin mo ako, nagkaroon ako ng kasalanan sa iyo.”

ATTY. BARLONGAY:

At this juncture, Your
Honor, we would like to register our objection as to the issue of the truth of
the statement as purported to be answered by her wife for two reasons: One, it is hearsay. We
have no opportunity to
cross-examine the …

COURT:

As part of his
narration.

ATTY. BARLONGAY:

Yes, as part of the
narration but just for purposes of record we would like to register our
objection as to the truth of the statement itself. First, it is
hearsay; second …

COURT:

Precisely, admitted only
as part of his narration.

ATTY. BARLONGAY:

That is alright. Second, it is … on the basis of the
inter-alia [sic] rule, the admission of
a party should not prejudice the rights of another.

x x x

ATTY. DEMIGILLO:

Q    What was the exact statement of your
wife?

x x x

ATTY. BARLONGAY:

Again, subject to the
observation of this Honorable Court, we would register our objections on these two grounds: Hearsay and res inter-alia [sic] rule.

x x x

ATTY. BARLONGAY:

Excuse me, I have some manifestations …

COURT:

You have a continuing
objection?

ATTY. BARLONGAY:

Yes, I am not going to
do this at every turn. I just want to
say that our objection is a continuing one.” (TSN, 29 June 1993, 36-39).

If they were then allowed by the
Investigating Justice as merely “part of the narration,” they should
only be considered as independently relevant statements, i.e., as proof
that Sol made statements or admissions, but not as proof of the truth of facts
revealed in the said statements or admissions. Elsewise stated, the admission in evidence of the words spoken by Sol is
not to be used in determining the issue of their truth. (FRANCISCO, V.J., The Revised Rules
of Court in the Philippines, vol.
VII, Part I, 1973 ed., 438). This being
so, the acts of sexual intercourse admitted by Sol cannot, insofar as the
respondent is concerned, be deemed proven by the said admission or
confession. While it is true that
technical rules of evidence should not be applied in administrative cases,
however, since the Investigating Justice herself had specifically allowed the
hearsay answers merely as part of the narration, or more specifically as
independently relevant statements, it would be unfair and arbitrary to
thereafter disregard the ruling. All
told, there is in this case no direct and competent evidence against the
respondent that he had illicit sex with Sol.

But even if the admission of Sol were to be taken as proof of the
truth of the facts so admitted, considering, however, that Sol’s admission that
she engaged in sexual intercourse on five occasions made no reference to
specific dates, that their affair antedated Sol’s marriage, that their last
proven tryst was in Hongkong in 1989, and that there is an absence of positive
and competent evidence to show that any of the five acts of sexual intercourse
took place after the respondent’s appointment to the judiciary, it cannot be
safely presumed that the respondent committed any of the sexual indiscretions
after he became a judge. Respondent is
not charged for immorality committed before his appointment. Accordingly, proof of prior immoral conduct
cannot be a basis for his administrative discipline in this case. The respondent may have undergone moral
reformation after his appointment, or his appointment could have completely
transformed him upon the solemn realization that a public office is a public
trust and public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the
people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and
efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives. (Section 1, Article XI, 1987
Constitution). It would be unreasonable
and unfair to presume that since he had wandered from the path of moral
righteousness, he could never retrace his steps and walk proud and tall again
in that path. No man is beyond
reformation and redemption. A lawyer
who aspires for the exalted position of a magistrate knows, or ought to know,
that he must pay a high price for that honor — his private and official
conduct must at all times be free from the appearance of impropriety. (Jugueta
vs. Boncaros, 60 SCRA 27 [1974]). And the lawyer who is thereafter appointed thereto must perforce be
presumed to have solemnly bound himself to a way of conduct free from any hint
or suspicion of impropriety. The
imputation of illicit sexual acts upon the incumbent judge must be proven by
substantial evidence, which is the
quantum of proof required in administrative cases. This the complainant failed to do. The meetings of the respondent and Sol at Unit 412-A of Citihomes
on 11 July and 17 July 1992 do not by themselves prove that these were trysts
for libidinal gratification. Evidence
was offered by the respondent to prove otherwise. However, considering their prior special relationship, the
respondent and Sol’s meetings could reasonably incite suspicion of either its
continuance or revival and the concomitant intimacies expressive of such
relationship. In short, the respondent
suddenly became indiscreet; he succumbed to the sweet memories of the past and
he was unable to disappoint Sol who asked for his legal advice on a matter
which involved her employment. Such
indiscretions indubitably cast upon his conduct an appearance of
impropriety. He thus violated Canon 3
of the Canons of Judicial Ethics which mandates that “[a] judge’s 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,” and Canon 2 of
the Code of Judicial Conduct which provides that “[a] judge should avoid
impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.” It has
been said that a magistrate of the law must comport himself at all times in
such manner that his conduct, official or otherwise, can bear the most
searching scrutiny of the public that looks up to him as the epitome of
integrity and justice. (Dia-Añonuevo
vs. Bercacio, 68 SCRA
81 [1975]). The ethical principles and
sense of propriety of a judge are essential to the preservation of the faith of
the people in the judiciary. (Candia
vs. Tagabucba, 79 SCRA 51 [1977]).

It is to be noted that 17 July 1992 fell on a Friday. On that date, the respondent left his office
at the City Hall of Manila at about 11:00 o’clock in the morning and arrived at
Unit 412-A Citihomes thirty minutes later. (TSN, 12 July 1993, 25). Per
report of the private detectives (Exhibit “G”), the respondent and
Sol left the unit at 1:30 o’clock in the afternoon on board a vehicle and that
twenty-five minutes later, Sol alighted near the crossing overpass at United
Street. It is, therefore, clear that on 17 July 1992 the respondent had
left his office during office hours and, considering the distance between
Mandaluyong and his office at the City Hall of Manila and the usual traffic
condition, it was impossible for him to have reached his office — if at all he
did proceed to it — in time for the commencement of the official session hours
in the afternoon, i.e., 2:00 p.m. (Paragraph 5, Interim and Transitional
Rules and Guidelines Relative to the Implementation of the Judiciary Reorganization
Act of 1981). Thus, for purely personal
reasons, he violated the rule regarding official session hours. Such violation amounted to neglect of duty.

Finally, a word on the respondent’s defense that he could not
have sexual congress with Sol because he was suffering from diabetes mellitus
and prostatitis. The claim is both
self-serving and irrelevant. No expert
testimony was presented to prove the stage, extent or degree of seriousness of
the diseases and their effects on his capacity to copulate. The physicians who purportedly issued the
medical certificates did not testify thereon. Besides, immorality — for which the respondent is charged — is not
based alone on illicit sexual intercourse. It is settled that:

“immorality has not been confined to sexual matters, but
includes conduct inconsistent with rectitude, or indicative of corruption,
indecency, depravity, and dissoluteness; or is wilful, flagrant, or shameless
conduct showing moral indifference to opinions of respectable members of the community,
and as an inconsiderate attitude toward good order and public welfare.”
(Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth ed., 1990, 751).

WHEREFORE, for violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct,
the Canons of Judicial Ethics,
and the rule on official time, respondent JUDGE MODESTO C. JUANSON is hereby
sentenced to pay a FINE of TWO THOUSAND PESOS (P2,000.00) and, further, sternly
warned that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Romero, Nocon, Melo, Quiason, Puno, and Vitug, JJ., concur.

Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, and
Regalado, JJ., in the result.

Bellosillo, J., no part.