EN BANC
[A.M. No. MTJ-98-1164. February
4, 2000]
VICTORIA R.
NABHAN, complainant, vs. JUDGE ERIC CALDERON, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT,
CALUMPIT, BULACAN, respondent.francis
R E S O L U T I O N
PER CURIAM:
For resolution is the administrative
complaint filed by Victoria R. Nabhan against respondent Judge Eric T. Calderon
of the Municipal Trial Court of Calumpit, Bulacan, for acts of lasciviousness
committed against her.[1]
The facts in this case, as found by the
Office of the Court Administrator, are simple.
Nabhan was private complainant in a case
pending before respondent judge, involving a violation of the Bouncing Checks
Law (B.P. 22) in the amount of P175,750.00. According to complainant,
respondent asked her to go to his office on March 30, 1998 at 5:00 in the
afternoon to discuss her case. While in his office, respondent allegedly told
complainant bluntly to buy him and a certain Ernie Calderon some drinks if she
wanted her case to prosper. Complainant reluctantly agreed.novero
Complainant left respondent's office to tell
her siblings she would be coming home late. She then hired a jeepney to take
her, respondent, and Ernie Calderon to Baliuag, Bulacan. The driver of the
jeepney was her brother-in-law, Bernardino V. Pagaragan. On the way to Baliuag,
respondent asked complainant to sit beside him at the back of the jeepney to
tell him more about her case. Ernie Calderon sat beside the driver in front.
Complainant obliged. However, respondent put his arms around her waist and
asked personal questions. Respondent then touched complainant's breasts and
told her not to resist or else nothing would come out of her case. Complainant
could only shield her breasts with her bag as she was afraid that respondent
would make good his threat.
In Baliuag, the group went inside a bar.
Respondent ordered four bottles of beer for the group. He continued touching
complainant's private parts while inside the bar. Complainant tried to leave
but respondent would not let her, again threatening her that nothing would
happen with her case. Respondent and Ernie Calderon continued drinking until,
finally, complainant told them that she had only P1,500.00 with her. Respondent
got the money from complainant and paid the bill.nigel
Respondent asked to be brought to Pulilan,
Bulacan. Along the way, he continued to touch and threaten complainant.
Complainant refrained from making an outcry, afraid to lose her case. She was a
single parent and she needed the money for her child's needs.
We referred to the Office of the Court
Administrator the administrative complaint for its evaluation, report, and
recommendation. In the meantime, respondent was placed under preventive
suspension.
In his counter-affidavit, respondent
vehemently denied complainant's accusations. He admitted that, indeed,
complainant filed a criminal complaint for violation of B.P. 22 before the
Municipal Trial Court of Angat, Bulacan, where he was temporarily assigned at
the time of the alleged incident.
According to respondent, it was complainant
who invited him and Ernie Calderon out for some drinks. He at first refused
since he had to attend mass as it was the death anniversary of his father.
While respondent was waiting for a ride to Pulilan, complainant arrived on
board a jeepney with two male companions (including the driver). Respondent
agreed to ride with them, as complainant was very persistent that he did. As
complainant started talking about her case, respondent told her it was
unethical for him to discuss with a litigant a case pending in his sala.ella
Respondent denied having asked complainant
personal questions and having touched her. He said both of his hands were all
the while clutching at the handle bars at the jeepney's entrance because the
driver was driving very fast. Moreover, he could not have done the acts being
imputed against him since complainant had another male companion beside her who
kept glancing around. Besides, it was daytime and there were many houses on
both sides of the road as well as vehicles travelling on the road.
Respondent admitted having gone to a
restaurant, not a bar, that day upon the invitation of complainant, but denied
having touched complainant in a lascivious manner once they were inside. It was
complainant who ordered food and drinks and paid the bill, and rightly so since
she was the one who invited the group, according to respondent. In his
testimony before the OCA hearing officer, respondent stated that he stayed in
that restaurant with complainant and the others for around two hours.
It was also complainant, according to
respondent, who insisted on giving him a ride home to Pulilan. Respondent sat
in front to give the driver directions.marineel
After evaluating the pleadings filed and the
testimonies of witnesses, the Office of the Court Administrator found
complainant's version of the incident truthful. It disbelieved respondent's
self-serving denials. Respondent admitted having gone to a restaurant with
complainant, although he denied he did anything malicious to complainant. If it
were true, however, that respondent was eager to go to Pulilan to attend the
memorial mass for his father, he would not have stayed with complainant for two
hours just eating and drinking. He could have, after a short while, asked to be
brought to Pulilan in time for the mass. Apparently, respondent was more
inclined to be with complainant than to attend the mass for his father.
The OCA further observed that complainant
might have been compelled to tolerate respondent's sexual advances due to her
desire to have the case she filed decided in her favor. It also noted that
respondent had some degree of coercive power over complainant, who was party to
a case he was supposed to decide.brando
The OCA concluded that, for his misconduct,
respondent did not deserve to remain in the judiciary. It recommended that he
be dismissed from the service with forfeiture of benefits and prejudice to
reemployment in government service.
On January 26, 1999, before the OCA's report
and recommendation in this case was finalized,[2] the Court promulgated its Resolution in A.M. No.
98-8-105-MTC, Re: Leaves of Absence Without Approval of Judge Eric T.
Calderon, Municipal Trial Court of Calumpit, Bulacan. In that case,
respondent was found guilty of gross misconduct and abandonment of office. He
was, accordingly, dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all benefits
and with prejudice to reemployment in any branch, instrumentality or agency of
the government, including government-owned and -controlled corporations.
With the promulgation of the resolution in
the aforecited case, the recommendation of the OCA in the present case only
strengthens the Court's determination that respondent is unfit for judicial
office. For obvious reasons, however, we cannot remove again a dismissed officer.
We are, thus, constrained to accept the OCA's recommendations for his dismissal
but deem it now superfluous. This pronouncement, however, is without prejudice
to the filing of other appropriate charges against respondent as, in fact,
complainant has already filed a criminal complaint against respondent for acts
of lasciviousness before the Municipal Trial Court of Baliuag, Bulacan.micks
Time and again we have admonished judges to
conduct themselves in a manner that is free even from the appearance of impropriety.[3] For judicial officers to enjoy the trust and respect
of the people, it is necessary that they live up to the exacting standards of
conduct demanded by the profession and by the Code of Judicial Conduct. This is
especially true in the case of judges who, on a daily basis, interact with the
public. Their official conduct, as well as personal behavior, should always be
beyond reproach.[4]
WHEREFORE, as recommended, respondent Judge Eric T. Calderon,
is found guilty of the administrative charge against him for which he should
suffer the penalty of dismissal from the service with forfeiture of all
benefits and with prejudice to reemployment in any branch, instrumentality or
agency of the government, including government-owned and -controlled corporations.
But since he was already dismissed from office, the recommended penalty in this
case need no longer be imposed and implemented for being moot.iska
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo,
Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo, Buena,
Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, and
De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
[1] Complainant also sent a copy of her affidavit-complaint to the Bulacan chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
[2] The report for this case was dated March 1, 1999.
[3] Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 2.
[4] Spouses Gregorio Lorena and Teresita Lorena v. Judge Adolfo F. Encomienda, MTC, Pagbilao, Quezon, A.M. No. MTJ-99-1177, February 8, 1999, p. 12.