CARINA AGARAO, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE JOSE J. PARENTELA, JR. AND CLERK OF COURT GLORIA LORENZO, RESPONDENTS.

Before the Court are two
complaints against Judge Jose J. Parentela, Regional Trial Court, Branch 23,
Trece Martires, Cavite, Clerk of Court Gloria Lorenzo, Municipal Trial Court,
Sariaya, Quezon, and Court Stenographer Teresita Maraan.

On June 17, 1999, the Office of
the Chief Justice received an anonymous letter charging respondent Judge with
corruption, abuse of power and immorality. The letter alleged that respondent
judge is known for accepting bribe from litigants in exchange for a favorable
decision on their cases, especially when real properties amounting to millions
of pesos are at stake. The litigants approach him through respondent Maraan who
talks to respondent Lorenzo who, in turn, talks to respondent judge. The
litigant, however, may directly deal with respondent judge if it involves a
large sum of money or property of high value. Also, no petition for bail is
granted by respondent judge without the prior approval of respondent Maraan who
obtains and shares a commission with respondent Lorenzo for every bail granted.
It is claimed that respondent judge was able to buy in cash a townhouse unit
worth millions of pesos and acquired a brand new car which was allegedly a gift
from an accused in a murder case. The complaint further alleged that respondent
judge has the habit of shouting at lawyers appearing before his sala and
berating his staff in open court. Complainants also rebuked the immoral and
scandalous acts of respondent judge and respondent Lorenzo. They claimed that
respondent judge and respondent Lorenzo openly carry an extra-marital affair
and respondent Lorenzo meddles in the management of respondent judge’s chambers
despite the fact that she is assigned at the Municipal Trial Court in Sariaya,
Quezon. The couple also allow their daughter to run around the office and shout
at the top of her voice, disrupting the work of the staff. The complaint also
charged respondent judge with serious mismanagement of his office. The process
server allegedly acts as court interpreter; the stenographer acts as clerk of
court and conducts ex parte hearing as commissioner; the legal
researcher takes charge of the issuance of warrants of arrest; and the
stenographers, aside from taking down and transcribing stenographic notes, also
perform various clerical jobs.

On September 1, 1999, the Office
of the Court Administrator (OCA) referred the anonymous complaint to the
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for the conduct of a discreet investigation
relative to the charges against respondents.

On December 16, 1999, the NBI
furnished the OCA with a copy of the report regarding the alleged corruption,
abuse of power and immorality of respondents. The report contained the
following findings:

“xxx                                                 xxx                                          xxx

2. The result of the discreet investigation were as follows:

I.   JOSE
J. PARENTELA, JR.

a.        Alleged
CORRUPTION and ABUSE OF POWER

We verified the allegation that Judge PARENTELA received a brand new
Honda car as a gift from an accused in a Murder case. We talked to Atty. ONOFRE
M. MARANAN, Asst. Provincial Prosecutor, Province of Cavite, about the case.
According to him, his office filed an information for Murder against all the
accused entitled Pp. vs. IGMIDIO STA. RITA, et al. docketed as TM-12844.
However, he was surprised to know when the two (2) accused, who were arrested
and allowed to post bail, were convicted only of slight physical injuries
instead of the crime of Murder. The other two (2) accused are still at-large.
He did not anymore take any remedial action on the case because he might be
accused of taking personally the verdict. He advised the heirs and relatives of
the victim of their right to go against Judge PARENTELA.

We were able to talk to the family of victim RONALDO COLOCADO and
requested them to submit certified true copy of the decision and other
important pleading of the case. (Annexes F, F-1 to F- ). According to the
father of the victim, he believes that Judge PARENTELA received bribe money
from the accused GUYAMIN brothers because they (GUYAMIN family) have sold their
residence located just a stone-throw away from his house. He hinted that the
proceeds was (sic) given to the Judge in exchange for the questionable
verdict. When asked if he could substantiate his accusation, Mr. COLOCADO
answered in the negative and added that he and his family already accepted the
fate of his son RONALDO.

A careful perusal of the case record disclosed that on July 5, 1994,
Atty. TITO S. CARPINA, Asst. Provincial Prosecutor, filed an information
against IGMIDIO STA. RITA, CRISPULO GUYAMIN, AUGUSTO PALUMPON and NESTOR
GUYAMIN for the crime of Murder docketed as TM- 1284. He recommended no bail
for the principal accused IGMIDIO STA. RITA while the three (3) other accused
NESTOR and CRISPULO both surnamed GUYAMIN and AUGOSTO PALOMPON were allowed to
post bail in the amount of P20,000.00 each. With these recommendations,
we can safely surmise that the last three (3) accused were indicted only as
accomplice in the crime of murder and the possibility of being convicted of a
much lesser offense is not remote. Moreover, we have no evidence that could
establish that Judge PARENTELA demanded or has received money, favor or
benefits in exchange for the alleged questionable verdict.

We did not anymore push through with the investigation of the other
accusations that Judge PARENTELA received bribe money in other cases being
heard in his Sala because our informants could not also recount or give investigative
lead on the other cases mentioned in the letter-complaint. In fact, except for
the abovementioned case, Prosecutor MARANAN could no longer recall the details
of the other alleged questionable verdict rendered by Judge PARENTELA.

To determine if indeed Judge PARENTELA amassed wealth while in
office, we tried to develop other or concealed assets or properties of subject
but the result is negative. In the 1998 statement of assets and liabilities
(previously marked Annex C-12) of Judge PARENTELA, the house and lot located at
Tierra Verde Subdivision, Bacoor, Cavite and the Honda car are among his
declared properties. These properties/assets were allegedly acquired illegally
using his position and power as Judge. Verification made with the Provincial
Assessor disclosed that the house and lot is still registered in the name of
Sta. Lucia Realty & Dev’t. Inc. (Annexes G, G-1 to G-3). Efforts were
exerted to obtain documents from Sta. Lucia Realty in order to establish the
new owner or the mode of acquiring said property by the new owner but their
representative called up through telephone on the scheduled hearing informing
us that they are still looking for the documents. With regard to the Maroon
Honda Accord with plate number 16*D23, we could not confirm or deny the
veracity of the ownership of the same because our letter dated November 11,
1999 sent to BENJAMIN CALIMA, Assistant Secretary, Land Transportation Office,
remained unheeded until now. (Annex H)

Considering that we could not determine in the meantime the exact
valuation or the mode or acquisition of the aforesaid properties/assets, it
would be very difficult for us to prepare an accurate comparative statement of
the net worth of Judge PARENTELA.

RECOMMENDATION:

The accusations against Judge PARENTELA are very serious that
should not be taken lightly. However, we do not have sufficient evidence to
establish prima facie case against Judge PARENTELA for violation of Republic
Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). Unless we receive information
on his participation in a particular and verifiable transaction, all our
efforts and resources will be put to naught. Hence, we recommend the temporary
closure with respect to this accusation only.

b.           Alleged IMMORALITY and SCANDALOUS
ACTS

The pieces of evidence we gathered clearly establish that Judge
PARENTELA who is validly and legally married to DELECIA MALUBAY on March 6,
1960, had been involved in an illicit relationship under scandalous
circumstances with GLORIA LORENZO, his former Clerk of Court in the Municipal
Trial Court, Sariaya, Quezon. Their relationship flourished and continued up to
present and in fact a child named EUNICE MAE L. PARENTELA was conceived and
born on March 9, 1993. The birth of EUNICE MAE was registered only in 1997 in
the Civil Registry of Trece Martires City. (Annex I) Their daughter EUNICE MAE
is presently enrolled as Grade I pupil at Saint Jude School, Trece Martires
City. (Annexes I-1 to I-4)

Verification was conducted to determine the information contained
in the birth certificate of EUNICE MAE that Judge PARENTELA and GLORIA LORENZO
were married last November 13, 1991 in Manila but the result is negative as
certified by the City Civil Registrar of Manila. (Annex J)

In the middle or last week of October 1999, Judge PARENTELA
allegedly suffered a stroke and was admitted in an undisclosed hospital in
Metro Manila. Our informant who does not want to be identified further told us
that Judge PARENTELA is very much ill and that GLORIA LORENZO is personally
taking care of the ailing Judge. He also confirmed that two (2) years ago, Mrs.
PARENTELA went to the office of Judge PARENTELA. When she saw GLORIA LORENZO
inside the office of Judge PARENTELA, she hurled invective words against GLORIA
LORENZO that caused scandal in the Capitol.

Moreover, our findings only confirm the Report (Annex K) in NBI
Case No. 81-895-407 dated August 6, 1982 that Judge PARENTELA had an illicit
relationship with his then clerk of court when he was assigned as Municipal
Judge in Sariaya, Quezon. The service record of GLORIA LORENZO shows that she
was the Clerk of Court of the Municipal Court, Sariaya Quezon, from August 1,
1977 up to the present. We tried to retrieve the folder of this case but the
same is not yet available.

RECOMMENDATION:

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, we respectfully recommend the
filing of appropriate criminal and administrative charges against Judge JOSE
PARENTELA for falsely stating in the birth certificate of her (sic) daughter
EUNICE MAE that he is legally married to GLORIA LORENZO on November 13, 1991 in
Manila. Also, for having an illicit affair under scandalous circumstances with
his former clerk of court GLORIA LORENZO. Moreover, to inform the Honorable
Justice ALFREDO L. BENIPAYO, Supreme Court, of the result of our discreet
investigation.

II. GLORIA
LORENZO Y GLORIOSO

The pieces of evidence we gathered clearly show that subject
LORENZO had knowingly and voluntarily indulged in an illicit relationship with
her former superior officer Judge JOSE PARENTELA, JR., who is legally married
to DELECIA MALUBAY. Their relationship flourished and begotten a child later
named EUNICE MAE PARENTELA, as evidenced by the birth certificate of EUNICE MAE
PARENTELA previously marked as Annex I hereof. Said birth certificate was
verified and found duly registered with the Civil Registry of Trece Martires
City.

We receive some information that she seldom reports to her office
in Sariaya , Quezon, and could be seen always in the office of Judge Parentela.
Also, despite her absence in the office, she receives nevertheless her complete
salary. Considering the delicateness of this case and the fact that it could
further delay the result of our investigation, undersigned decided to hold in
the meantime any investigative action.

The certification issued by BELEN G. SAMAR, OIC Task Force
Administrative Services, Supreme Court, disclosed that she failed to file her
statement of assets and liabilities for the year 1998. (Previously marked Annex D-5)

RECOMMENDATION:

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, we would like to recommend the
filing of appropriate criminal and administrative charges against GLORIA
LORENZO for knowingly and voluntarily having an illicit affair under scandalous
circumstances with Judge PARENTELA and for failure to file her statement of
assets and liabilities for the year 1998. Further, to inform the Supreme Court
of the result of our investigation.

II.   TERESITA MARAAN Y ALEGRE

After our discreet investigation, we received no derogatory remark
against subject MARAAN except that she is close to Judge PARENTELA and GLORIA
LORENZO.

The certification issued by BELEN G. SAMAR, OIC, Task Force
Administrative Services, Supreme Court, shows that she failed to file her
statement of assets and liabilities for the years 1996, 1997 & 1998.
(Previously marked Annex E-3)

RECOMMENDATION:

CONSIDERING THE FOREGOING, we would like to recommend the
temporary closure of this case unless and until we receive additional
information of her participation in any illegal transaction that would warrant
the opening of this case. However, appropriate criminal and administrative
charges should be filed against her for failure to file her statement of assets
and liabilities for the years 1996, 1997 & 1998, as required by law.”

On June 21, 2001, the Court
required the respondents to file a comment on the anonymous complaint.

Meanwhile, on August 19, 1999, the
Office of the Chief Justice received a similar letter from Carina Agarao,
President, Crusade Against Violence, reporting that respondent Lorenzo is often
seen in the sala of respondent judge in Cavite, although she continues to
receive her salary from the Municipal Trial Court of Sariaya, Quezon. The
letter also alleged that respondent Lorenzo is the live-in partner of
respondent judge and openly negotiates with litigants regarding cases pending
before the court.

On September 2, 1999, Chief
Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. referred the letter to Deputy Court
Administrator Zenaida N. Elepaño, DCA-in-charge for Region IV, for discreet
inquiry/investigation and recommendation.

DCA Elepaño submitted her report
dated May 2, 2000 with the following findings:

“Judge Parentela was first appointed to the bench on 19
October 1962 as Justice of the Peace in Sariaya, Quezon. He resigned from the Municipal
Trial Court on 30 January 1987 and was appointed Tanodbayan Special Prosecutor
on 17 March 1987. On 30 May 1994, he was appointed Regional Trial Court Judge
(Branch 23) with station at Trece Martires City, Cavite. Judge Parentela is a
native of Quezon Province and is married to Delicia Malubay. They established
residence at 87 Hasmin Street, Zaballero Subdivision in Lucena City. Their
Metro Manila address is at 130 San Francisco Street (b-513), Mandaluyong City.

On the other hand, Gloria Lorenzo was first appointed to the
judiciary on a temporary basis as a court-clerk of the municipal court of
Sariaya on 1 August 1977. Promoted to the position of MTC Steno-reporter on 1
July 1984 upon the recommendation of Judge Parentela, she was thereafter appointed
as MTC Clerk of Court I on 4 November 1985, also on the very favorable
recommendation of the judge. Her personnel files place her residence at Marichi
Subdivision in Sariaya, Quezon. She is unmarried but has allegedly adopted a
child named Eunice Mae who now lives with her and Judge Parentela in Bacoor,
Cavite.

Records at hand show that as judge in Sariaya, Judge Parentela had
been the object of complaints from litigants and non-litigants as well, for
bribery and/or extortion. One complainant described him as “corrupt,” “evil,”
and “despicable.” The complaints however were dismissed by the Office of the
Court Administrator either because these were not notarized and therefore could
not be entertained, or because the complainants desisted or were not able to
present sufficient proof of their charges.

According to the MTC-Sariaya court personnel, it was while Judge
Parentela was presiding judge of their court and Lorenzo appointed as
court-clerk that the illicit relationship between the two began. They noticed
that their judge and his branch clerk became very intimate, but they chose to
ignore the existing relationship as it concerned a very personal matter. It is
worthy to mention though that on 31 May 1988, several concerned citizens of
Sariaya sent letters to Tanodbayan Raul Gonzales and to the Supreme Court
complaining about the “immorality of Judge Parentela and Gloria Lorenzo,”
expressing their disgust at the open illicit relationship between the two. At
this time Judge Parentela had already resigned from the judiciary and was with
the Tanodbayan. But as far as the charge against Lorenzo was concerned, then
Court Administrator Maximo Maceren returned the letter-complaint because it was
not sworn to. It is not shown that the complainants pursued their charge by
submitting a notarized complaint.

Concerning the charge of absenteeism against Gloria Lorenzo, the
records show that on 13 August 1998 Gloria Lorenzo underwent a “modified
Radical Masectomy of the right breast because of cancer” together with “Dilatation
with Curettage.” Six (6) days after the masectomy and D and C, she again went
under the surgical knife, this time for a Total Abdominal Hysterectomy, since
the D and C showed malignancy. (Annex “A”)

Personnel Records of Ms. Lorenzo show that she applied for and was
granted by OCA a long vacation leave of from 1 June to 31 December 1998. She
again applied for leave of absence up to 30 June 1999. Re-applying, she was
again granted a leave of absence by OCA-Administrative Services as follows:

Fourteen (14) days sick leave with pay from 1-20 July 1999;
seventy-two (72) days vacation leave with pay from 21 July to 28 October 1999;
sixty-two (62) days sick leave without pay from 29 October to 29 December 1999.

On 14 January 2000, Ms. Lorenzo filed with Judge Bienvenido Mapaye,
presiding judge of MTC-Sariaya, an application for sick leave without pay for
the period of from January to October 2000. She cited pertinent provisions of
the Omnibus Civil Service Rules Implementing Book V of the Administrative Code
of 1987 which allows leave of absence without pay for a period not exceeding
one (1) year in addition to the vacation and/or sick leave earned. The
application was recommended for approval by Judge Mapaye.

Meanwhile, court personnel of RTC-Trece Martires have affirmed that
Ms. Lorenzo goes to court daily together with Judge Parentela together with
Eunice Mae. Allegedly, Lorenzo acted as “de facto” judge and/or clerk of court,
since Judge Parentela had virtually given her a full run of the place. Her scandalous
presence thereat has caused tremendous discomfort, chagrin and demoralization
among the personnel of the said court such that one of them, Luzviminda
Poblete, a clerk, even asked and was allowed to transfer to the Cavite City
courts. In my interview with her, she disclosed that she learned that Judge
Parentela and Lorenzo are living together as husband and wife despite the fact
that he is still legally married to another. The judge and Gloria Lorenzo have
taken up residence in Bacoor, Cavite at the Tierra Verde Subdivision together
with the 7-year old Eunice Mae, bruited to be the couple’s daughter as she
bears the surname Parentela. This child played in and roamed around the court
premises freely and with impunity, disturbing and distracting the court personnel
at work.

Our Sariaya court personnel however doubts that the child Eunice
May is an issue of Parentela and Lorenzo. For one, the latter was never
pregnant for the entire period she reported for duty in Sariaya. Then too, what
the court personnel know is that the child is that of a former co-employee, a
court utility worker who gave the infant to Lorenzo two weeks after delivery at
a Sariaya hospital. They however do not know if Lorenzo legally adopted the
baby (In her personnel files, specifically her Statement of Assets and
Liabilities, Lorenzo describes Eunice Mae as adopted). Initially, the baby bore
the surname Lorenzo, but in Cavite she began using Parentela as surname which
is what allegedly, the birth certificate of the little girl shows.

Our Sariaya informants also
relayed to me that the legal wife of Judge Parentela who left for the United
States sometime ago is now back in the Philippines and has been calling the MTC
staff apparently to elicit from them an admission that the little girl is the
illegitimate child of her husband. They all insist however that it is not so.
Asked when was the last time they saw Gloria Lorenzo in Sariaya, they informed
me that it was on 16 March 2000 when she visited them to tell them that she may
be reporting for work on 2 November 2000, although it would all depend on her
state of health at that time. Gloria Lorenzo used to reside with her sister in
Sariaya but does not do so anymore as she has transferred residence to Bacoor,
Cavite.”

On June 27, 2000, the Court
directed Judge Parentela and Ms. Lorenzo to comment on the charges contained in
the letter of complainant Agarao.

On July 31, 2000, the Court
received a letter from Mrs. Delicia M. Parentela requesting that all cases
filed against Judge Parentela be dropped as he had passed away on June 3, 2000.
As the administrative cases were filed against respondent judge before his
demise and all the benefits due him were witheld by the Court pending the
resolution of said cases, the Court denied the request of Mrs. Parentela.

On August 18, 2000, respondent
Maraan filed her comment denying the charge against her in the anonymous
complaint. She admitted having dealt with individuals who have problems
procuring provisional liberty for an accused. However, she stated that it was
only because she was instructed by respondent judge to take charge of said
cases and make sure that all documentary requirements are complete.

Respondent Lorenzo, on the other
hand, was required to show cause why no disciplinary action should be taken
against her for failure to file her comment to both complaints within the given
period.

As respondent Lorenzo still failed
to file her comment despite the lapse of the extended period, the Court, on
June 26, 2001, resolved to dispense with the filing of said comment and
referred the case to the OCA for evaluation, report and recommendation.

Both complaints were consolidated
on October 1, 2001.

The OCA, through DCA Elepaño,
submitted a report dated August 31, 2001 stating, among others:

“xxx                                                 xxx                                          xxx

After considering the report of the NBI and the result of the
investigation the undersigned personally conducted on the letter-complaint
against Judge Jose Parentela and Ms. Gloria Lorenzo, it appears that only the
charge of immorality was sufficiently established.

As to respondent Gloria Lorenzo, since the resolution requiring her
to comment is deemed served on her, her failure to deny the charges up to this
very late date despite due notice is deemed an implied admission of the charges
hurled against her. She is likewise guilty of refusal to abide by the lawful
order of this Court. Time and again, the Court has held that respondents in
administrative complaints should comment on all accusations or allegations
against them in the administrative complaints because it is their duty to
preserve the integrity of the Judiciary. Moreover, the Court should not and
will not tolerate future indifference of respondents to administrative
complaints and to resolutions requiring comment on such administrative
complaints.

Anent respondent Teresita Maraan, the complainant failed to adduce
any evidence to support her charge of corruption which up to this date has
remained a bare allegation. Hence, the charge against said employee must be
dismissed for being unsubstantiated.”

The OCA made the following
recommendations:

“xxx                                                 xxx                                          xxx

2.  respondent Judge Jose J.
Parentela be FOUND GUILTY of the charge of immorality and all his retirement
benefits be FORFEITED in favor of the Judiciary;

3.  respondent Lorenzo be
DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of all the benefits due her, with
prejudice to reemployment in the government or any government-owned or
controlled corporation for Immorality and Gross Insubordination; and

4.  the complaint against
respondent Teresita Maraan be dismissed for being unsubstantiated.”

We agree with the factual findings
of the OCA.

The result of the discreet
investigation conducted by the NBI and DCA Elepaño are not sufficient to
support the charge of corruption against respondents. They, however, confirm the
existence of an illicit amorous relationship between respondent judge and
respondent Lorenzo, which is a ground for the imposition of disciplinary
sanction against them. Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides that “a
judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all
activities.” The Code thus mandates that the conduct of a judge must be free of
a whiff of impropriety not only with respect to his performance of his official
duties, but also to his behavior outside his sala and as private individual.
There is no dichotomy of morality: a public official is also judged by his
private morals.^[1] In Naval vs. Panday,^[2] the Court reminded all
judges to “maintain good moral character and at all times observe
irreproachable behavior so as not to outrage public decency.” Such standard of
moral uprightness extends not only to members of the Bench but to all court
personnel as well. It has been held that the image of a court of justice is
mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of the personnel who work
thereat, from the judge to the lowest of its personnel. Court employees have
been enjoined to adhere to the exacting standards of morality and decency in
their professional and private conduct in order to preserve the good name and integrity
of the courts of justice.^[3] Those who work in the judiciary must adhere to high
ethical standards to preserve the courts’ good name and standing, and an
offense involving moral turpitude makes one unfit as court employee.^[4] Thus, the conduct of respondent
judge and respondent Lorenzo of flaunting their amorous relationship throughout
the court despite respondent judge’s marital status make them unsuited to their
positions in the Judiciary.

Under Rule 140 of the Revised
Rules of Court^[5] immorality is considered a
serious offense^[6] which is penalized with
dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the
Court may determine, and the disqualification from reinstatement or appointment
to any public office, including government-owned or controlled corporations,
provided that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave
credits.^[7]

IN VIEW WHEREOF, respondents Judge Jose J. Parentela, Jr. and Gloria
Lorenzo are found GUILTY of the charge of immorality. One half of all the
retirement benefits of respondent judge excluding the monetary equivalent of
his accrued leave credits are FORFEITED in favor of the Judiciary. Respondent
Lorenzo is DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of all the benefits due
her, except the monetary equivalent of her accrued leave credits, with
prejudice to re-employment in the government or any government-owned or
controlled corporation. The complaint against respondent Teresita Maraan is
DISMISSED for being unsubstantiated.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo,
Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Pardo, Buena,
Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, Jr., Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Carpio, JJ., concur.