12.docx

[A.M. No.RTJ-02-1708. July 23, 2002]CYNTHIA RESNGITMARQUEZ, SHIELAH J. RAMOS,ROSALINDA L. ROQUILLAS and VICKY F.RAMOS, complainants, vs. JUDGE VICTOR T. LLAMAS, JR.,Regional Trial Court, Branch 56, San Carlos City,Pangasinan, respondent . Charges: immorality and gross misconduct. FACTS: The complainants are court employees. They allegedthat the respondent judge, although married, maintains anillicit relationship with a married woman, Lourdes Munoz-Garcia (who fondly calls him “Daddy”or Masiken[ Pangasinense for “old man”] and the relationship istrumpeted in open view) and both are living together ashusband and wife under one roof. The Judge also used theoffice of his personnel as dancing halls and drinking winerooms during office hours. And the Judge was even drunkalmost everyday (his court interpreter alleged that heholds a glass of wine while roaming the Justice Hall duringoffice hours and would force his staff to drink with himand some lawyers and litigants. He loves Carlsber winesbecause they make him feel young). They were alsosubjected to intimidated and harassed by the respondentJudge.Associate Justice Romeo A. Brawner of the Court ofAppeals findings and recommendation: “Respondent Judge has failed to live up to these exacting magnitude of how a judge should behave. His disregard forcommon decency and morality has made him unfit to discharge his present position “and thus his dismissal is in order. His retirement benefits should likewise be forfeitedbut his wife who has never appeared on the scene shouldnow be his saving grace against such forfeiture. “Indeed it is the wife of Judge Llamas who is the aggrieved party in the infidelity of her husband but she was not theone who initiated this complaint nor did she participate inits prosecution. This factor should be considered in respondent Judge’s favor and therefore he should bespared the forfeiture of his earned benefits.” ]

Justice Brawner thus recommended that respondent Judgebe dismissed from service but without forfeiture of hisearned benefits.ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent judge is guilty ofimmorality.RULING: YES.In administrative proceedings, only substantialevidence, i.e., that amount of relevant evidence that areasonable mind might accept as adequate to support aconclusion, is required. We find no room to accommodate doubts on Justice Brawner’s findings of facts, which we find to be a result of a meticulous and dispassionateanalysis of the testimonies of the complainants and therespondent as well as their respective witnesses. Thus, we adopt Justice Brawner’s recommendation of dismissal. The Code of Judicial Conduct mandates that a judgeshould be the embodiment of competence, integrity, andindependence. He should so behave at all times as topromote public confidence in the integrity and impartialityof the judiciary, and avoid impropriety and the appearanceof impropriety in all activities. His personal behavior, notonly while in the performance of official duties but alsooutside the court, must be beyond reproach, for he is, as heso aptly is perceived to be, the visible personification oflaw and of justice. [ Regrettably, respondent Judge failed to live up tothese standards. He brazenly flouted judicial ethics and betrayed judicial standards by using ‘his court to indulge his drinking, singing and dancing habits to the detriment ofthe other courts within the building who were disturbedby all the noise coming fr om his courtroom”; and, especially, by maintaining an illicit relationship withLourdes Muñoz Garcia, a married woman. A judge suffersfrom moral obtuseness or has a weird notion of morality inpublic office when he labors under the delusion that he canbe a judge and at the same time have a mistress in defianceof the mores and sense of morality of the community.A judge traces a line around his official as well aspersonal conduct, a price one has to pay for occupying anexalted position in the judiciary, beyond which he may notfreely venture. No position is more demanding as regardsmoral righteousness and uprightness of any individualthan a seat on the Bench.

Thus, a judge ought to live up tothe strictest standard of honesty, integrity anduprightness. Certainly, keeping a mistress is not an act onewould expect of a judge who is

expected to posses thehighest standard of morality and decency.Respondent Judge shamelessly mocked the dignity ofhis office and tainted the image of the entire judiciary towhich he owes fealty and the obligation to keep it at all time unsullied and worthy of the people’s trust. Respondent Judge has shown himself unworthy of thejudicial robe and the place of honor reserved for theguardian of justice in a civilized community. On thisoccasion, therefore, the Court metes upon respondentJudge the severest of administrative penalties. He is herebystripped of his judicial robe.However, we are unable to agree with the reservationof Justice Brawner on the forfeiture of earned benefits duerespondent Judge based on the fact that respondent Judge’s wife was not the one who initiated this complaint nor did she participate in its prosecution. The non-participation or non-appearance of the wife in theadministrative proceedings for immorality is not a factorin the imposition of penalty. Neither should it be beneficialto respondent Judge.DISPOSITION: GUILTY OF THE CHARGE OFIMMORALITY. HEREBY DISMISSED WITH FORFEITURE OF50% OF HIS RETIREMENT BENEFITS