RE: COMPLAINT OF DR. CORA J. VIRATA AGAINST JUDGE FRANCISCO G. SUPNET, PRESIDING JUDGE, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 47, PASAY CITY FOR “UNETHICAL, IMMORAL, ILLEGAL ACTUATIO…

On January 31, 2002, the Oversight Committee of the Supreme Court
received two (2) letters from one Dr. Cora J. Virata, a 79-year old doctor,
charging respondent Francisco G. Supnet, Presiding Judge of the Metropolitan
Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 47, with “Unethical, Immoral, Illegal
Actuations.” Dr. Virata alleges that she is the complainant in Criminal Cases
Nos. 99-3586 to 88 against Editha S.
Bailon, for violation of Batas Pambansa
Blg. 22.

In sum, Dr. Virata claimed that at 11:30 a.m. of January 31,
2002, respondent judge called her up to say that the above criminal cases were
scheduled for promulgation on February 13, 2002, and that the same will be
dismissed based on a technicality. Respondent judge went on to talk about the
huge amount involved in the case including the condominium unit subject of the
writ of attachment. Dr. Virata further
alleged that two years ago, respondent judge called her up on the telephone to
ask for P20,000.00 for the graduation expenses of his children, but that she
was only able to send him the amount of P 10,000.00. Thereafter, on two other occasions, respondent judge called up
Dr. Virata and asked for P5,000.00 as Christmas gift. Thus, when respondent judge asked Dr. Virata to meet him before
the promulgation of the decision in the criminal cases, she became scared that
he will ask for money again, so she sought the help of the Oversight Committee.

On February 4, 2002, Dr. Virata personally appeared before the
Committee to discuss her complaint. The
following day, she executed an affidavit detailing her charges against
respondent judge. She added that
respondent judge again called her up at 1:30 in the afternoon of February 4,
2002. Her secretary, Rose Sy, listened
on the extension. Respondent judge told
her that after reviewing the criminal cases, he realized that Dr. Virata can
receive as much as P1,000,000.00 in interest if she wins. So he asked Dr. Virata to give him the
amount of P1,000,000.00. Dr. Virata
replied that she did not have that kind of money, and that she was already too
old and sickly. Respondent judge sounded
exasperated and reduced his demand to P250,000.00, saying, “Take it or leave it!” When Dr. Virata insisted that she did not
have the money, respondent judge shouted at her and banged the telephone.

On February 8, 2002 the Committee received another letter from
Dr. Virata requesting for the immediate inhibition of respondent judge as she
was afraid he might make good his threat to dismiss her cases for her failure
to meet his demands.

In view of the seriousness of the charge against respondent Judge
Francisco G. Supnet, the Oversight Committee recommended to the Court that
respondent be directed to hold in abeyance the reported promulgation of the
decision in Criminal Cases Nos. 99-3586 to 88 on February 13, 2002, and to
suspend further proceedings thereon until further notice. The Court, in a Resolution dated February
12, 2002, approved and adopted the recommendation of the Oversight Committee
and required respondent judge to comment on the complaint within ten (10) days
from notice thereof.

In his comment, respondent Judge denied all the charges imputed
to him. In support thereof, he
submitted a copy of his Decision in Criminal Cases Nos. 99-3586-88, wherein he
ruled in favor of complainant.

On February 19, 2002, the Court referred the matter to Assistant
Court Administrator (ACA) Carlos L. de Leon for investigation, report and
recommendation within sixty (60) days from receipt of the records of the case.

A total of five hearings^[1] were
conducted by ACA de Leon with complainant Dr. Virata, respondent Judge Supnet
and their respective witnesses present.

On September 16, 2002, ACA de Leon submitted his Report and
Recommendation finding respondent Judge Supnet guilty of “Unethical, Immoral
and Illegal Actuations” in relation to Criminal Cases Nos. 99-3586 to 99-3588
amounting to Gross Misconduct.

The Report disclosed the candid accounts of complainant Dr.
Virata as to her five (5) telephone
conversations with respondent Judge Supnet, wherein the latter made direct
monetary demands from her. According to
complainant, she acceded to the first three (3) requests without suspicion of
extortion considering that she had on previous occasion even extended a loan to
the Philippine Government.^[2]
Pertinent excerpts of her testimony run as follows:

DR. VIRATA:

As I said before, I am a very kind-hearted woman. I even gave you this (the money, on the first three occasions respondent Judge Supnet
allegedly demanded for it) because you are in need of money. I even gave a loan of $75,000.00 to the Cory
(Aquino) Government because they have
no money to pay the filing fee of $75,000.00. It is different from the time you called on February 4, 2002
demanding/extorting money from me. That
is a very different thing. This is
extortion and we have to stop this extortion. I will never tolerate this extortion.^[3]

xxx    xxx       xxx

DR. VIRATA:

During the early part of March 22, 2000, Judge Supnet called
my clinic, and it was my secretary who (first) answered him. He was asking me for P20,000.00 to help him
for the graduation of his children. Sabi niya: “Kailangan ko ang tulong ninyo,
ipadala ninyo dito agad sa inyong secretary ang pera.” So I was in a hurry
to secure all the money that we have in the clinic, and I was able to raise P
10,000.00. So, I sent the money to my
secretary and I told her to deliver it to the office of Judge Supnet.^[4]

xxx    xxx       xxx

DR. VIRATA:

Judge Supnet called again my clinic around Christmas time of 2000, asking for P5,000.00. So, I got all the money at the clinic and
asked my secretary to bring the money to the office of Judge Supnet. Then came another Christmas time of 2001, Judge Supnet called again my clinic and
asked for me – and my secretary gave me the telephone. He said: “Dra.,
ito po si Judge Supnet, kailangan ko po ang P5,000.00 ngayong Christmas.” So,
I got all the money that we have in my clinic, wala naman akong nakuha kundi P2,000.00, pinabigay ko doon sa aking
secretary. Those are the three
calls that he made to my clinic.^[5]

Complainant bared that her last two (2) telephone conversations
with respondent Judge Supnet on January 31, 2002 and February 4, 2002 took a
different and more serious tone, giving her reason for alarm and fear.

DR. VIRATA:

The fourth call was already at my house on January 31, 2002 at around 11:30 a.m. I got scared and I was crying
because I know that we have a meritorious case. Why will this judge call me and tell me that my case will be
dismissed, and the amount that I will lose – if I lose this case? He asked me
if I can go to his office and we will talk about the matter. I said: “Judge,
maawa po kayo sa akin, hindi na ‘ko puwedeng pumunta sa inyo, hindi na ako
makaakyat diyan at ako ay mahina na.” So, I got scared when he notified me
about this and I immediately reported this case to the Oversight Committee of
the Supreme Court because here is a judge who is calling a litigant to tell me
that my case will be dismissed due to a technicality and it will be promulgated
on February 13, 2002.

The next call was on February
4, 2002, the call came around 1:50 p.m. while I was sick in bed and I was
having lunch with my secretary in my bedroom. The phone rung and the number 831-11-09 registered on my Caller I.D. The
caller said: “Dra., si Judge Supnet ho
ito, ni-review ko iyang kaso ninyo sa transcripts and documents and it is
okay. Alam ninyo ba ho kung magkano ang makikita na interest ng inyong pera
sa P2,020,000.00? Kikita ang pera ninyo na may P1 milyon.” Sabi ko po: “Hindi
ko po alam iyon.” Sabi niya: “Ibigay ninyo na lang sa akin ang 1 milyon.” Sabi
ko: “Naku po, judge, maawa po kayo sa akin, ako ay na-swindle na ng
P2,020,000.00 – kaya ako lumapit sa
inyo para makakuha ng justice. Eh,
ngayon kayong judge pa ho ang mag-e-extort ng money sa akin. Maawa po kayo sa akin, wala po akong ganyang
kalaking pera at ako ay may sakit na.”

Sabi niya: “Magkano ang kaya
mo?” Sabi ko: “Judge, wala po akong pera.” Sabi niya: “O, sige, hanggang
P250,000.00 na lang, kung hindi take it or leave it. Ipadala ninyo dito sa secretary ninyo at kung hindi, kalimutan
ninyo na tayo ay nagkausap.”

The more I got scared, and my secretary was there listening because
when we were eating she heard that I was talking with Judge Supnet. She grabbed the extension line – I have two
(2) lines in my room – and she listened to every word that we talked about.

Rose Sy, the secretary of complainant Dr. Virata, confirmed these
in her direct testimony before the Investigating Officer, thus –

ROSE SY:

That on March 22, 2000, at around 1:00 p.m., Judge Supnet called up
Dra. Virata and they talked and after talking Dra. Virata called me up, that
Judge Supnet is asking P20,000.00 but she was able to raise P 10,000.00 and I
immediately went to the office of Judge Supnet riding in a taxi, upon arriving
at the office I went to the chamber of Judge Supnet and handed the money in an
envelope. And again, in December 2000, Judge Supnet again called up, asking P
10,000.00 and again, I immediately went to the office of Judge Supnet and gave
the money again.

That in December 2001, again, Judge Supnet called up asking money
for P5,000.00 but we were able to raise P2,000.00 – I handed again the money to
Judge Supnet. That on January 31, 2002, at around 11:00 a.m., Judge Supnet
called the clinic looking for Dra. Virata but Dra. Virata was not in the clinic
at that time. So, I gave the telephone number of Dra. Virata to her residence.
Then Dra. Virata told me that Judge Supnet called her and they talked about the
promulgation of the case, that the case will be dismissed due to technicality,
and she felt nervous and scared of what Judge Supnet told.^[6]

ROSE SY:

Then, again on February 4, 2002, at around 1:50 p.m., while we were
eating lunch at the house of Dr. Virata, the phone rang and when Dr. Virata
answered the phone and said: “Who is this?” and she told “Judge Supnet” and I
immediately got the extension line, I listened to their conversation. Narinig ko pong lahat iyong pinag-usapan
nila. Sinabi po ni Judge: “Alam po
ninyo doctora kung magkano ang mawawala sa inyo? 1 million plus the attachment
bond ng condominium.”

The last conversation between complainant and respondent, as
revealed by complainant and corroborated by Ms. Sy, was substantiated by the
testimony of PLDT employee Gregorio Sanchez and the Head of Security of San
Lorenzo Village, Lt. Faustino Malate. According to them, on February 4, 2002,
the caller identification device attached to the telephone unit of complainant
showed the number 831-1 1-09 as the twenty-first call received by complainant.
The number was established to be the one assigned to MTC-Br. 47, Pasay City,
the sala of respondent judge.

For his part, respondent Judge Supnet denied having made the
alleged calls to complainant Dr. Virata. He presented as witnesses: (a) his
legal researcher, Marie Joy P. Lagman, who testified that she never saw Ms. Sy
deliver money to respondent judge on the dates alleged in the charges made by
complainant; (b) his sheriff, Nicolas de Guzman, who testified on a futile
attempt of a different litigant to bribe respondent for a favorable decision;
and (3) his records officer, Emelita San Miguel, who testified that she typed
the decision of respondent in Criminal Cases Nos. 99-3586 to 99-3588.

ACA de Leon struck down the testimony of Sheriff de Guzman as
irrelevant for referring to a totally different case from the criminal cases
under investigation. The testimony of legal researcher Lagman also failed to
refute the allegation of complainant and her secretary on the delivery of the
money demanded by respondent as it was established that (a) it is not her
primary duty to check on every person who reports to their office; and (b)
visitors of respondent judge do not accomplish visitor’s slip before seeing
him.

The testimony of Emelita San Miguel sought to establish that
aside from respondent, she was the only person who knew about the decision on
subject cases and that she never talked to anyone about it. Thus, she could not
have been the one who called up complainant and demanded money from the latter.
Her testimony does not refute the claim of complainant and Ms. Sy that it was
respondent who made the call on February 4, 2002 as the details of the
conversation referred to specific contents of the decision supposedly known to
only San Miguel and respondent. Moreover, complainant and Ms. Sy firmly
maintained that it was the male voice of respondent which they heard on the
other end of the telephone line. Both claimed to be familiar with respondent’s
voice considering their several appearances before him during the trial of
subject cases.

We agree in full with the findings of ACA de Leon. The
examination of complainant’s testimony, given in the presence of respondent
judge, disclosed the events that led to her filing of the complaint. She was
positive and categorical in her narration which was corroborated by her
secretary, Ms. Rose Sy. More importantly, there was confirmation of the alleged
calls from a PLDT employee and the Head of Security of the village where
complainant resides.

Also worth noting is complainant’s knowledge of details in the
decision of respondent judge even before it was promulgated – (1) that the
interest on the money subject of the cases is P1 million pesos; and (2) that
the decision will be promulgated on 13 February 2002. A scrutiny of a copy of
the decision submitted by respondent together with his Comment confirms these
details. Respondent, in his attempt to refute the charge against him, presented
as witness his records officer Emelita San Miguel, who typed the decision.
Instead of helping his defense, however, her testimony even buttressed
complainant’s case as it revealed that only two (2) persons knew of the
contents of the decision – respondent and San Miguel. Thus, it could only have
been one of them who gave complainant a call on February 4, 2002. Complainant
and her secretary, who listened to the telephone conversation through the
extension line, were positive that it was a male voice, that of respondent
judge, on the other end of the line.

In the face of the positive declarations of complainant and her
witnesses, all respondent judge could offer in his defense is denial.

The acts of respondent Judge in demanding and receiving money
from a party-litigant before his court constitute serious misconduct in office.
Serious misconduct is such conduct which affects a public officer’s performance
of his duties as such officer and not only that which affects his character as
a private individual.^[7] For
serious misconduct to warrant a dismissal from the service, there must be
reliable evidence showing that the judicial acts complained of were corrupt or
inspired by an intention to violate the law.^[8] It
must (1) be serious, important, weighty, momentary, and not trifling; (2) imply
wrongful intention and not mere error of judgment; and (3) have a direct
relation to and be connected with the performance of his duties.^[9]
All these elements are present in the case at bar.

A judge is the visible representation of the law and, more
importantly, of justice.^[10] He
must be first in observing the law scrupulously.^[11] Any
appearance of criminal violation of the law, in any way or capacity, directly
or indirectly, principal or accessing, will warrant the judge to be divested of
his judicial authority.^[12] We
cannot tolerate a discordant robe in the judiciary.^[13]

This Court condemns in the strongest possible terms the
misconduct of respondent judge. 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. Corruption operates to make him a deceased
member, which must be decisively severed from the body of the judiciary and
cast aside.

WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Judge Francisco G.
Supnet, Presiding Judge, Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 47,
GUILTY of serious misconduct and accordingly orders his DISMISSAL from the
service and the forfeiture of retirement benefits, except accrued leave
credits, with prejudice to reemployment in any branch of the government or any
of its agencies or instrumentalities, including government-owned and controlled
corporations.

Respondent Judge Supnet shall immediately vacate his position as
Presiding Judge, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 47, Pasay City, as well as
any position in the judiciary to which he may be presently assigned, and desist
from deciding or resolving any case or incidents therein upon receipt of the
notice, except to promulgate the decision in Criminal Cases Nos. 99-3586 to
3588, attached to his Comment.

SO ORDERED.

Bellosillo, Vitug, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago,
Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo,
Sr., and Azcuna, JJ., concur.

Davide, Jr., C.J., and
Puno, J., on official leave.

^[1] March 11 and 20, 2002, May 9 and 29, 2002
and June 13, 2002.

^[2] Exhibits “O,” “O-1,” “O-2,” “O-3,” “O-4,”
and “O-5.”

^[3] TSN, 11 March 2002, pp. 39-40.

^[4] Ibid.,
pp. 12-13.

^[5] Id.,
pp. 13-14.

^[6] TSN, 11 March 2002, p. 51.

^[7] Cong. Manuel N. Mamba, et al. v. Judge Dominador L. Garcia, MTC, Tuao,
Cagayan, A.M. NO. MTJ-96-1110, 25 June 2001.

^[8] Ibid.

^[9] Id.

^[10] Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Ismael Sanchez y Balais, RTC,
Lucena City, A.M. No. RTJ-99-1486, 26 June 2001.

^[11] Ibid.

^[12] Id.

^[13] Id.