SECOND DIVISION
LUCILA TAN, A.M.
No. MTJ-04-1563
Complainant, (Formerly A.M. OCA
IPI No. 02-1207-MTJ)
Present:
Puno, J.,
Chairman,
- versus - *Austria-Martinez,
Callejo, Sr.,
Tinga, and
Chico-Nazario, JJ.
Promulgated:
Judge MAXWEL S. ROSETE,
Respondent. September
8, 2004
x- - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
DECISION
PUNO, J.:
Lucila
Tan filed the instant complaint against Judge Maxwel S. Rosete, former Acting
Presiding Judge, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 58, San Juan, Metro Manila,[1]
for violation of Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court and the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019).
The complaint alleged
that Lucila Tan was the private complainant in Criminal Case No. 59440 and Criminal
Case No. 66120, both entitled People of the Philippines vs. Alfonso Pe Sy and
pending before Branch 58, Metropolitan Trial Court of San Juan, Metro Manila,
then presided by respondent judge.
Before the cases were decided, respondent judge allegedly sent a member
of his staff to talk to complainant.
They met at Sangkalan Restaurant along Scout Albano, near Timog Avenue in
Quezon City. The staff member told her that respondent was asking for P150,000.00
in exchange for the non-dismissal of the cases. She was shown copies of
respondent judge’s Decisions in Criminal Cases Nos. 59440 and 66120, both still
unsigned, dismissing the complaints against the accused. She was told that respondent judge would
reverse the disposition of the cases as soon as she remits the amount
demanded. The staff member allowed
complainant to keep the copy of the draft decision in Criminal Case No.
59440. Complainant, however, did not
accede to respondent’s demand because she believed that she had a very strong
case, well supported by evidence. The
criminal cases were eventually dismissed by respondent judge.[2]
Respondent
judge, in his Comment, denied the allegations of complainant. He instead stated
that it was complainant who attempted to bribe him in exchange for a favorable
decision. She even tried to delay and to derail the promulgation of the
decisions in Criminal Cases Nos. 59440 and 66120. Complainant also sought the intervention
of then San Juan Mayor, Jinggoy Estrada, to obtain judgment in her favor. Mayor Estrada allegedly talked to him
several times to ask him to help complainant.
The former even called him over the phone when he was in New Zealand, persuading
him to hold in abeyance the promulgation of the Decisions in said cases. But he
politely declined, telling him that there was no sufficient evidence to convict
the accused, and moreover, he had already turned over the Decisions to Judge
Quilatan for promulgation. Respondent further stated that complainant kept
bragging about her close relations with Mayor Estrada who was her neighbor in
Greenhills, San Juan, and even insinuated that she could help him get appointed
to a higher position provided he decides the suits in her favor. Respondent judge also claimed that
complainant offered to give cash for the downpayment of a car he was planning
to buy. But he refused the offer. Finally, respondent judge denied that a member
of his staff gave complainant a copy of his draft decision in Criminal Case No.
59440. He said that he had entrusted to
Judge Quilatan his Decisions in Criminal Cases Nos. 59440 and 66120 before he
left for New Zealand on study leave.
Thus, he asserted that it was impossible for him to thereafter change
the resolution of the cases and it was likewise impossible for any member of
his staff to give complainant copies of said Decisions.[3]
In
a resolution dated December 2, 2002, the Court referred the complaint to the
Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City for investigation,
report and recommendation.[4]
First
Vice Executive Judge Edwin A. Villasor conducted several hearings on the
administrative case. Only complainant
Lucila Tan testified for her side. She presented as documentary evidence the
copy of the unsigned Decision in Criminal Case No. 59440 dated February 23, 2001
which was allegedly handed to her by a member of respondent judge’s staff.[5] Respondent judge, on the other hand,
presented four (4) witnesses: Josefina Ramos, Rodolfo Cea (Buboy), Fernando B.
Espuerta, and Joyce Trinidad Hernandez. His documentary evidence consists of
the affidavits of his witnesses,[6]
copy of the Motion for Reconsideration in Criminal Case No. 59440,[7]
and various documents composed of the machine copy of the Order of Arrest in
Criminal Case No. 117219, machine copy of the letter dated December 29, 1997, machine
copy of Certification dated Nov 13, 2000, front and dorsal sides of Check No.
QRH-0211804, Bank Statement dated March 31, 1998, Stop Payment Order dated
April 6, 1998, Current Account Inquiry, and Transaction Record, which documents
were allegedly given by complainant to respondent’s witness, Fernando B.
Espuerta.[8]
The
Investigating Judge summarized the testimonies of the witnesses as follows:
COMPLAINANT’S
VERSION:
1. LUCILA
TAN
Complainant
Lucila Tan testified that she knew Respondent Judge because she had a case in
Branch 58, MeTC, San Juan, Metro Manila.
She alleged that, in September 1998, she filed two cases involving B.P.
22 and Other Deceits with the Prosecutor’s Office in Pasig. After resolution, the cases were filed in
the MeTC, San Juan. One case went to
Branch 57 and the other one went to Branch 58, where Respondent Judge Rosete
was the Presiding Judge. Judge Quilatan
was the Presiding Judge of Branch 57.
Upon advise of a friend, she moved for consolidation and the two cases
were transferred to Judge Quilatan in Branch 57. Subsequently, in view of the Motion for Inhibition filed by Complainant’s
lawyer, Judge Quilatan inhibited himself and the two cases were transferred to
the sala of Respondent Judge Rosete (TSN, pp. 9-16, Hearing of March 3,
2003). After several hearings, the
Clerk of Court, named Joyce, called up the Complainant and advised her to talk
to San Juan Mayor Jinggoy Estrada to seek for (sic) assistance. Joyce gave her the phone number of the
Office of the Mayor (TSN, pages 17-18, Hearing of March 3, 2003). Complainant then called up the Office of the
Mayor but her call was intercepted by Josie, the Mayor’s Secretary. When she told Josie why she called, the
latter asked her if she wanted to meet the Judge and when Complainant answered
in the affirmative, Josie made arrangements for Complainant to meet the Judge (TSN,
pages 19-21, Hearing of March 3, 2003).
Complainant called up the Office of the Mayor sometime in November or
late October 2000 and she met the Judge on November 10. She, Josie and Respondent Judge met at the
Cravings Restaurant in Wilson, San Juan (TSN, page 22, Hearing of March 3,
2003). During the meeting,
Complainant “told the Judge regarding this matter, how this happened and that
he will convince the Accused to pay me as soon as possible” (TSN, page 23,
Hearing of March 3, 2003). When she
went to the restroom for a few minutes, Respondent Judge and Josie were left
alone. After she came back, they went
home. On the way home, Josie told her
to give something to [the] Judge, “Sabi niya magbigay tayo ng kaunti para
bumilis iyong kaso mo” (TSN,
page 24, Hearing of March 3, 2003).
At first, Josie did not mention any amount but when the Complainant
asked her how much, the former mentioned Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00). Complainant asked for a lesser amount,
Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) (TSN, page 25, Hearing of March 3,
2003). When Josie agreed, she sent
the amount of P20,000.00 to Josie through her driver after two days (TSN,
pages 26-27, Hearing of March 3, 2003).
When Josie received the money, the Clerk of Court, Joyce, also called
her (Complainant) on that date. The
Clerk of Court asked her if she sent money.
At first, Complainant denied it but the Clerk of Court said that Josie
went there and there was money in the drawer (TSN, pages 28-29, Hearing of
March 3, 2003). After that, several
hearings were on-going, and before the resolution, Joyce called up the Complainant
again around February 2001. Complainant
was in Baguio when Joyce called saying that she had an important thing to tell
to (sic) the Complainant. After
Complainant got back to Manila, Joyce called her again and said that she will
show Complainant something. When they
were in Complainant’s car in San Juan, Joyce showed Complainant two unsigned
Decisions of the case[s]. After reading
the Decisions, Complainant saw that the cases were dismissed and that it will
be dismissed if she will not accede to Joyce’s request (TSN, pages 30-33,
Hearing of March 3, 2003).
Complainant claimed that Joyce asked for Php 150,000.00 for each
case. “Sabi niya it [was] for Judge
daw, kailangan daw ni Judge because he is leaving at that time” (TSN,
page 34, Hearing of March 3, 2003).
Complainant identified the copy of the Decision in Criminal Case No.
59440 for Other Deceits, dated 23 February 2001, which was marked as Exhibit
“A” for the Complainant (TSN, pages 35-38, Hearing of March 3, 2003). Complainant further alleged “Sabi niya, if
I will accede to that request of P150,000.00 for each case then they
will (sic) going to reverse the Decision” and “Si Judge daw” will
reverse the Decision. Complainant met
with Joyce around February 2001 (TSN, page 39, Hearing of March 3, 2003). Complainant further claimed that Joyce told
her to go to Mayor because he is a friend of the Judge. Complainant went again to the Office of the
Mayor to seek the Mayor’s help and she met the Mayor at his Office in San
Juan. The Mayor called up the Judge but
he was not around so the Clerk of Court, Joyce, was called. Joyce went to the Office of the Mayor and
when she arrived, she said that the Judge was out of the country (TSN, pages
40-41, Hearing of March 3, 2003).
The Mayor asked for the phone number of Respondent Judge Rosete, which
Joyce gave. Mayor Estrada was able to
get in touch with the Judge. While the
Mayor was talking in (sic) the phone with the Judge, Complainant was in
front of the Mayor (TSN, pages 42-43, Hearing of March 3, 2003). Complainant heard the Mayor “because his
voice is very loud.” He said, “Judge,
Saan ka? Sabi niya New Zealand. When were you coming back? I do not know what is the answer and then he
said, you help my friend naswindler siya, pabilisin mo ang kaso niya para
matapos na kasi matagal na iyan” (TSN,
page 43, Hearing of March 23, 2003).
After that they left the Office of the Mayor and Complainant was not
able to approach Mayor Estrada again.
Since the Complainant was still carrying the Decision, and being afraid
that it will be promulgated already, she sought the advi[c]e of her friends. The
Complainant showed the decision to the Prosecutor in San Juan at that time (TSN,
pages 44-45, Hearing of March 3, 2003).
The Prosecutor told the Complainant that she is going to meet with the
Judge when he comes back from New Zealand.
Complainant testified that, sometime in April, in Sangkalan, Quezon
City, a night life restaurant, she met Respondent Judge Rosete. She was with
two (2) Prosecutors. When she arrived
at Sangkalan at about 8:30 in the evening, Judge Rosete was already in the
company of several men whom she got to know as Fernan and Buboy (TSN, pages
46-48, Hearing of March 3, 2003).
After eating and drinking, the Complainant left at around 10:30 in the
evening. While they were inside,
Complainant claimed that she did not say anything at all and it was the
Prosecutor who talked in her behalf.
She was the one who paid all the bills which amounted to Six Thousand
Pesos (P6,000.00). When
Complainant left, only they, three (3) girls, left while the Judge and his
company were still there drinking.
While Complainant was waiting for her car outside, a man came over from
behind (TSN, pages 49-50, Hearing of March 3, 2003). Complainant did not know him but she asked
the Prosecutor later after the man left.
The Complainant said that the man asked if he could have an advance,
which she understood as a payment, and she told the Prosecutor. Complainant heard the Prosecutor say that
she already talked to the Judge. The
man left and went back inside the restaurant (TSN, page 51, Hearing of March
3, 2003). Complainant said that
when she did not give the money she was still scared because there will already
be a promulgation and she did not know whether it will be in her behalf (sic)
or not. Complainant did not give
anything aside from the P20,000.00 because her case was very strong and
she had all the papers and evidence and that she promised them that she will
give them after she was (sic)
able to collect all the debts.
Complainant did not know the actual date of the promulgation but
somebody from the Office of Respondent Judge called her up in her house and
told her not to go to the promulgation.
When Complainant asked why, “Sabi niya baka mapaiyak daw ako kasi
alam na daw nila ang decision. Sabi
niya ako na lang ang magdedeliver ng case ng promulgation.” She received the decision when she sent her
driver to pick it up. The caller said
that the decision was unfavorable to her (TSN, pages 52-55, Hearing of March
3, 2003).
RESPONDENT’S
VERSION:
1. JOSEFINA
RAMOS
She
testified that she was the Private Secretary of Mayor Jinggoy Estrada, the
former Mayor of San Juan, Metro Manila, since he was Vice Mayor of San
Juan. In 2000 and 2001, she was already
the Secretary of Mayor Jinggoy (TSN, page 7, Hearing of September 9, 2003). She met Lucila Tan when the latter went to
the Mayor’s Office together with Tita Pat, the sister of President Estrada, but
she could no longer remember the year.
Lucila Tan went to the Office, together with Tita Pat, and they were
seeking the help of Mayor Jinggoy because they have a case. She did not know the case because they were
talking to Mayor Jinggoy. She could no
longer remember how many times Lucila Tan went to the Office of Mayor Jinggoy Estrada. She did not know what Lucila Tan wanted from
Mayor Jinggoy Estrada or how close Lucila Tan was to him (TSN, pages 8-11,
Hearing of September 9, 2003). She
denied that she met Lucila Tan at the Cravings Restaurant and that she
suggested to Lucila Tan to give Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) to
Judge Rosete to speed up or facilitate her cases but that Lucila Tan agreed for
only Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00). She claimed that she did not know what Lucila Tan was talking
about regarding the money. There was no
occasion that she suggested or even intimated to Lucila Tan the idea of giving
money to Judge Rosete. She denied that
she met with Lucila Tan and Respondent Judge at Cravings Restaurant along
Wilson Street in San Juan, Metro Manila.
She identified her Sworn Statement, subscribed on February 5, 2003,
which was marked as Exhibit “1” (TSN, pages 12-16, Hearing of September 9,
2003). She denied that Lucila Tan
gave anything to her (TSN, page 17, Hearing of September 9, 2003).
2. RODOLFO
CEA
He
testified that his acquaintances usually call him “Buboy” and for about two
years or more he had no occupation. Two
years before, he was a Clerk III at Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 58, San
Juan. He knows Lucila Tan because, when
he “was still working as Clerk in San Juan, she approached me and asked if I
can introduce her to Judge Rosete and eventually asked for a favorable decision
against her case.” He could not
remember anymore when that was because “it was a long time ago” (TSN, pages
6-7, Hearing of September 22, 2003).
It was when he was still with the MeTC, Branch 58, San Juan, Metro
Manila. He met Lucila Tan at the
corridor of the Metropolitan Trial Court when she approached him and asked if
he can introduce her to Judge Rosete.
He agreed to introduce Lucila Tan to Judge Rosete but he was not able to
actually introduce Lucila Tan to Judge Rosete “because aside from the
introduction, she wants me to ask Judge Rosete for a favorable decision against
(sic) her case and I told her that Judge Rosete don’t (sic) like
his staff (to) indulge on that kind of transaction” (TSN, pages 8-9, Hearing of September 22, 2003). As far as he knows, the meeting he had with
Lucila Tan in the corridor of the Court in San Juan was “the first and the last
time.” When asked about the claim of
Lucila Tan that he approached her and demanded from her a sum of money to represent
an advance payment for a favorable decision in her cases then pending before
Judge Rosete, he answered “I don’t know about that, sir.” (TSN, page 10, Hearing of September 22,
2003.) He identified the Sworn
Statement, subscribed on February 6, 2003, and confirmed and affirmed the
truthfulness of the contents of the Affidavit, which was marked as Exhibit “2” (TSN,
pages 11-12, Hearing of September 22, 2003). He denied that he met the
Complainant at Sangkalan Restaurant around 8:30 in the evening of an
unspecified date (TSN, page 13, Hearing of September 22, 2003).
3. FERNANDO
B. ESPUERTA
He
testified that he is a government employee employed at the Supreme Court with
the position Budget Officer III since November 9, 1981. His first job was Casual and he became
Budget Officer in 1997 (TSN, page 46, Hearing of September 22, 2003). He recalled having met Lucila Tan sometime
just before Christmas in October or November 2000. The first time he saw Lucila Tan was in a restaurant in Quezon
City where she was introduced to him by Fiscal Reyes. He went to the restaurant alone.
He was invited by Judge Rosete because they had not been together for a
long time and they were long time friends.
They ate at the restaurant. When
he arrived, Judge Rosete and Buboy were already there. They stayed in the restaurant until 11:00
[eleven] o’clock in the evening (TSN, pages 47-49, Hearing of September 22,
2003). He met Lucila Tan in that
restaurant when Fiscal Reyes pointed him to Lucila Tan as Fernan of the Supreme
Court. When he arrived there, Buboy and
Judge Rosete were already there. Later,
the three (3) girls arrived, namely:
Fiscal Reyes, Lucila Tan and the sister of the Fiscal (TSN, page 50,
Hearing of September 22, 2003).
They ordered and ate but they were in a separate table. He recalled that Judge Rosete paid for their
bill because he saw him get a credit card and sign something. He did not know about Mrs. Tan but he saw
Judge Rosete sign and give to the waiter.
The incident where he met Lucila Tan in the restaurant in Quezon City
came before the incident when she went to his Office (TSN, pages 51-52,
Hearing of September 22, 2003). He
could not remember the month when Lucila Tan went to his Office but he
remembers that it was nearing Christmas in 2000. “Pumunta siya sa akin parang may ipinakiusap siya sa akin,
katunayan nandito po dala ko.”
Lucila Tan asked him to help her in her case with Alfonso Sy. “Meron siyang inalok sa akin. Sabi bibigyan niya ako ng three hundred
thousand pesos (P300,000.00) para iabot kay Judge Rosete. Ang sagot ko nga sa kanya, hindi ganun ang
aking kaibigan. Matagal na kaming
magkaibigan niyan noong nagpapractice pa yan.
Iyon ang sagot ko sa kanya.”
He told Judge Rosete about that and the latter got mad at him. In their second meeting, Lucila Tan gave him
papers. He presented a Motion for
Reconsideration in Criminal Case No. 59440, which was marked as Exhibit “3” (TSN,
pages 53-56, Hearing of September 22, 2003). He presented the papers
actually given to him by Lucila Tan. He
claimed that the xerox copy was the exact same document given to him by Lucila
Tan when she went to his Office. The
other documents that Lucila Tan gave to him when she went to his Office were
marked as Exhibit “4” and submarkings (TSN, pages 57-63, Hearing of
September 22, 2003). Lucila Tan told him the contents of the documents and how
the case against Alfonso Sy came about.
When Lucila Tan asked him, he answered her that his friend (Respondent
Judge) was not like that and they had been together for a long time and it is
not possible. When he told Judge Rosete
about that, the latter got mad at him.
Lucila Tan also mentioned to him that she knew the son of the Chief
Justice (TSN, pages 64-66, Hearing of September 22, 2003). Lucila Tan
was insisting that he give Judge Rosete so that her case will win but he
answered that his friend was not like that (TSN, pages 67-68, Hearing of
September 22, 2003).
4. JOYCE
TRINIDAD HERNANDEZ
She
testified that she was a government employee connected with the Judiciary at
the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 58, San Juan, Metro Manila. She knew Complainant Lucila Tan because in
the year 2000 she had a case in their court.
She first came to know Lucila Tan when the latter went to their Office
with Ellen Sorio, the Branch Clerk of Court of Branch 57, who introduced Lucila
Tan to her. Ellen Sorio said, “may
kaso ito sa inyo, pinapasabi ni Mayor kay Judge” (TSN, pages 7-11, Hearing of September 29, 2003). She did not say anything but Lucila Tan
asked “may tumawag na ba sa Mayor’s
Office?” and she said “yes,
ma’am.” After that there was a hearing
and the sister of former President Estrada went to their Office looking for
Judge Rosete. She told her that Judge
Rosete was on a hearing and the former told her to tell Judge Rosete about the
case of Lucila “na pinakikiusap ni Mayor” (TSN, page 12, Hearing of September 29, 2003). She told Judge Rosete about the things that
the sister of the former President told her and that Judge Rosete said
nothing. She denied the testimony of
Complainant on March 3, 2003 that, sometime in November 2000, she (Joyce
Hernandez) called up Lucila Tan by telephone and said that she saw money
stuffed inside the drawer of the Respondent in his Office and that she asked
the Complainant whether the latter was the one who sent the money stuffed
inside the drawer. What she remembers
is that Lucila Tan called her and asked if Josie went to their Office and she
told Lucila Tan that Josie never went to their Office. She also denied that she called up Lucila
Tan sometime in February 2001 and claimed that Lucila Tan was the one who
called her up and told her that she (Lucila Tan) was going to show her
something. Lucila Tan showed her a copy
of the Decision and she was surprised when the former showed her the copy. When she asked where Lucila Tan got the
copy, the latter did not answer and said that Mayor Jinggoy wanted to talk to
her (TSN, pages 13-16, Hearing of September 29, 2003). She immediately went to the Office of the
Mayor with Lucila Tan and Mayor Jinggoy talked to her. The Mayor asked her where Judge Rosete was
and she answered that he was in New Zealand on study leave. When the Mayor asked if she knew the
telephone number of the Judge, she gave him the telephone number in New Zealand. She was present when the Mayor called up
Respondent Judge and talked to him (TSN, page 17, Hearing of September 29,
2003). “He said ‘Pare ko, ano na
itong kaso na pinakikiusap ko sa iyo?’
I don’t know what was your answer(ed) [sic] to him, you were
talking and then he said ‘ganun ba?’ then Mayor Jinggoy said ‘o sige,
okay na’ and then we left the Office.”
She denied that she gave two advance copies of the Decisions in
Complainant’s two cases inside the latter’s parked car in San Juan, Metro
Manila and claimed that Complainant was the one who showed her the copy in
their Office. She likewise denied the
testimony of the Complainant that she allegedly demanded Php150,000.00 for each
of the two cases then pending before Branch 58, which were decided by
Respondent Judge, in return for a favorable decision (TSN, pages 18-21,
Hearing of September 29, 2003). She
claimed that it was the Complainant who offered to her. She identified her Sworn Statement,
subscribed and sworn to on February 5, 2003, which was marked as Exhibit “5,”
and confirmed and affirmed the truthfulness of all the contents thereof (TSN,
pages 22-25, Hearing of September 29, 2003).[9]
The
Court is now faced with two opposing versions of the story. Complainant claims that respondent judge,
through his staff, required her to pay the amount of P150,000.00 for him
to render judgment in her favor in the two criminal cases she filed against
Alfonso Pe Sy. Respondent judge, on the
other hand, asserts that it was complainant who attempted to bribe him by
offering to pay for the downpayment of the car he was planning to buy, and she
even sought the intervention of then San Juan Mayor Jinggoy Estrada to persuade
him to rule for the complainant in Criminal Cases Nos. 59440 and 66120.
The
issue in this administrative case thus boils down to a determination of the
credibility of the parties’ evidence.
After
a thorough evaluation of the testimonies of all the witnesses, as well as the
documentary evidence presented by both parties, we find the complainant’s version
more trustworthy. Not only did she testify with clarity and in full detail, but
she also presented during the investigation the unsigned copy of the draft
decision of respondent judge in Criminal Case No. 59440 given to her by a
member of his staff. Said documentary
evidence supports her allegation that a member of complainant’s staff met with
her, showed her copies of respondent judge’s draft decisions in Criminal Cases
Nos. 59440 and 66120, and demanded, in behalf of respondent judge, that she
pays P150,000.00 for the reversal of the disposition of said cases. It would be impossible for complainant to
obtain a copy of a judge’s draft decision, it being highly confidential, if not
through the judge himself or from the people in his office. And an ordinary
employee in the court cannot promise a litigant the reversal of a case’s
disposition if not assured by the judge who drafted the decision.
The
respondent’s evidence did not overcome the facts proved by complainant. We note that the testimonies of two of
respondent’s witnesses contradict each other.
Fernando Espuerta confirmed complainant’s claim that she met respondent
judge and his two companions, Espuerta himself and Rodolfo Cea (Buboy), at
Sangkalan Restaurant in Quezon City.
Rodolfo Cea, on the other hand, denied that he met complainant at
Sangkalan Restaurant and swore that he never went out with respondent judge in
non-office functions. The Investigating
Judge observed:
Thus, there is an apparent inconsistency in the
testimony of the Respondent Judge’s two witnesses, Rodolfo Cea and Fernando B.
Espuerta, regarding the incident at Sangkalan Restaurant in Quezon City where Complainant
claimed that she met Respondent Judge, a certain Fernan, and Buboy, while she
was with two Prosecutors. Fernando B.
Espuerta testified that he was at Sangkalan Restaurant with Respondent Judge
and Buboy (Rodolfo Cea), while the latter (Rodolfo Cea) denied that he met the Complainant
at Sangkalan Restaurant.[10]
(citations omitted)
Hence, we are more inclined to believe complainant’s
version that she met with respondent judge and his companions at Sangkalan
Restaurant sometime in April 2001.
We
have also observed that respondent judge has not been very candid with the
Court as regards the dates when he went to New Zealand and when he came back to
the Philippines. Respondent asserts that he was already in New Zealand at the
time when complainant claims that he met with her. However, the evidence he presented only shows his New Zealand
visa and the dates when he entered said country.[11] He did not show to the investigating body
the dates when he left and returned to the Philippines. Apparently, he entered New Zealand on two
dates: March 4, 2001 and May 1, 2001.
We may therefore infer that complainant was in the Philippines before
May 1, 2001, which is consistent with complainant’s testimony, as well as that
of Fernando Espuerta, that she met with respondent judge and his companions,
Fernando and Buboy in April 2001.
We
have repeatedly admonished our judges to adhere to the highest tenets of
judicial conduct. They must be the
embodiment of competence, integrity and independence. Like Caesar’s wife, a judge must not only be pure but above
suspicion. This is not without
reason. The exacting standards of
conduct demanded from judges are designed to promote public confidence in the
integrity and impartiality of the judiciary because the people’s confidence in
the judicial system is founded not only on the magnitude of legal knowledge and
the diligence of the members of the bench, but also on the highest standard of
integrity and moral uprightness they are expected to possess. When the judge
himself becomes the transgressor of any law which he is sworn to apply, he
places his office in disrepute, encourages disrespect for the law and impairs
public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary itself. It is therefore paramount that a judge’s
personal behavior both in the performance of his duties and his daily life, be
free from any appearance of impropriety as to be beyond reproach.[12]
Respondent’s
act of sending a member of his staff to talk with complainant and show copies
of his draft decisions, and his act of meeting with litigants outside the
office premises beyond office hours violate the standard of judicial conduct required
to be observed by members of the Bench.
They constitute gross misconduct which is punishable under Rule 140 of
the Revised Rules of Court.
IN
VIEW WHEREOF, Respondent Judge Maxwel S. Rosete is SUSPENDED from
office without salary and other benefits for FOUR (4) MONTHS.
SO
ORDERED.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
(on official leave)
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice
* On official leave.
[1] Now
Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Santiago City,
Isabela per A.M. No. 04-5-118-MTCC promulgated on July 29, 2004.
[2] Complaint, Rollo, pp. 1-2.
[3] Comment, Rollo, pp. 52-55.
[4] Rollo, p. 95.
[5] Exhibit
“A.”
[6] Affidavit
of Josefina Q. Ramos (Exhibit “1”); Affidavit of Rodolfo Cea (Exhibit “2”); and
Affidavit of Joyce Trinidad A. Hernandez (Exhibit “5”).
[7] Exhibit “3.”
[8] Exhibits “4,” and “4-A” to “4-J,”
inclusive.
[9] Report of First Vice Executive Judge
Edwin A. Villasor, pp. 7-18.
[10] Report of First Vice Executive Judge
Edwin A. Villasor, p. 24.
[11] Annexes
“3” & “3-A,” Respondent’s Rejoinder to Complainant’s Reply.
[12] Avancena
vs. Liwanag, 406 SCRA 300 (2003); Yap
vs. Inopiquez, Jr., 403 SCRA 141 (2003).