DAWA, JORGENSEN & LAZARO – BARRETO v.
JUDGE ARMANDO DE ASA Judge De Asa, the presiding judge of Branch 51 and acting executive judge of
FACTS: 3 victims // complaints for sexual harassment under Republic Act No.
7877/acts of lasciviousness, grave or serious misconduct, and for violation
of the high standard of morals demanded by judicial ethics
1. Floride Dawa a 24 year-old single girl employed as a stenographic
reporter in Branch 52 of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC for
brevity) of Caloocan City. Dawa was on her way to the toilet room
when the respondent Judge De Asa saw her. As usual conversation,
the Judge asked Dawa whether the toilet was clean. She answered
that it was dirty. When she neared the respondent, the latter put his
arm on her shoulder and led her into his chamber. Once inside and
while she was standing near the edge of respondents office table,
he placed his arm around her shoulder and suddenly held her jaw
and kissed her on the lips. That same day, she related the incident
to Judge Delfina Hernandez-Santiago.
2. Noraliz Jorgensen a casual employee in the Office of the Mayor of
Caloocan City and detailed to the Office of the Clerk of Court, (OCC
for short), MeTC, Caloocan City. Among her duties was the
preparation and follow up of the payrolls for RATA and gasoline
allowances of the Metropolitan Trial Judges. Upon the approval of
said payrolls, it was her duty to receive the cash from the cashier
and deliver them to the individual judges.
She was harassed by the respondent 4 times. Respondent forcibly
kissed her every time she goes to his office to secure his signature
on the payroll.
3. Femenina Lazaro-Barreto is a thirty-year old married woman who is
a Court Stenographer II in Branch 53 of the Caloocan City MeTC.
After respondent signed the Order, he stood up and while Barreto
was looking at the Order, he held her chin and kissed her. Barreto
asked, What are you doing? Respondent kissed her again and
tapped her shoulder saying, Sigue na, Nina. Okay na, dismissing her.
Barreto went out of the office and wiped her lips with her hand.
Margo, a stenographer in Branch 51 saw her. She did not relate the
incident to her husband but he learned about it from the
newspapers.
the Metropolitan Trial Court of Caloocan City, denied all the allegations.
RULING: In view of the stature of respondent judge, as well as his authority
and official responsibility over the complainants, who were his subordinates
in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Caloocan City, the Court concludes with
moral certainty that he acted beyond the bounds of decency, morality and
propriety and violated the Code of Judicial Conduct. The bench is not a place
for persons like him. His gross misconduct warrants his removal from office.
Respondent Judge Armando C. de Asa is hereby DISMISSED from the service
for gross misconduct and immorality, with forfeiture of all retirement
benefits and leave credits and with prejudice to reemployment in any
branch of the government, including government-owned or controlled
corporations.
JUNIO V. RIVERA
FACTS: Fourteen (14) year-old Cristina Junio filed with the Office of the
Provincial Prosecutor a criminal complaint dated 24 May 1991 for acts of
lasciviousness against respondent Judge Pedro Rivera Jr. of the Municipal
Trial Court of Alaminos, Pangasinan.1 The filing of this complaint caused the
commencement of Criminal Case No. 2422-A against respondent Judge with
Branch 55 of the Regional Trial Court of Alaminos, Pangasinan.2 Trial of this
case has been completed and the case is now pending decision.3
Meanwhile, Cristina's father, Patricio Junio, filed a sworn administrative
charge dated 6 June 1991 against the respondent with the Court
Administrator with respect to the same acts complained of criminally; thus
was commenced the present administrative case. Complainant Patricio
Junio further requested, through the Presidential Committee on Human
Rights, the Secretary of Justice to do something about the matter.
She testified that between the hours of 2:30 and 3:00 o'clock in the
afternoon of May 20, 1991 she was helping in the store of her parents which
is located at the Alaminos Commercial Complex. She was sent to their
rented house to get the ingredients for halo-halo. The house is owned by
the respondent who stays at the ground floor, while the Junio family occupy
the second floor.
Upon reaching the house, she went to their housemaid named Concepcion
Tugade who was then helping cook food for the celebration of the
respondent's birthday. She got their housemaid's 1 year old child in order to
dress her up and bring her to the store. The name of the child is Shiela May.
She brought the child to her (Cristina) room to change the former's clothes.
While dressing up Shiela, respondent allegedly entered her room, took
Shiela and made her sit on the bed and after which he went near Cristina,
embraced her and kissed her. She tried to push him. The respondent,
allegedly let her loose and then left the room while she sat on the bed and
cried.
Then the respondent allegedly returned, went near her, and pushed her
until she was lying on the bed. He then mounted on top of her, kissed her
on the lips, inserted his right hand inside her blouse and, simultaneously,
inserted his left hand inside her maong pants, mashed her breast and
touched her vagina for a long time.
Then Shiela May cried. The respondent stood up and left the room. Cristina
also took the child and went out of the room. The respondent was allegedly
still in the sala and he told her [Cristina] to stop crying. Conching Tugade
arrived and complainant (Cristina) told the former what happened. She was
advised to report it to her parents. Upon arrival in their store, she told her
mother and she also told her father. They then went to the police
headquarters and caused the incident to be entered in the police blotter.
She identified her sworn statement marked as Exhibit "D" and series (sic)
which she subscribed before Fiscal Finez on May 24, 1991. She claims
damages in the amount of P300,000.00.
RULING: We conclude that the administrative charges preferred by Cristina
Junio and her father against respondent Judge have been substantiated by a
preponderance of evidence, evidence which is clear and convincing and
which respondent Judge has not successfully rebutted.
Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct prescribes that:
A judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all
activities.
Rule 2.01 of the same Code provides that:
A judge should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the
integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
This Court has laid down exacting standards of morality and decency from
those who serve in judiciary. 34 A member of the judiciary is judge not only
his official acts but also by his private morals, to the extent that such private
morals are externalized in behavior. Respondent judge has failed to
measure up to those demanding standards. WHEREFORE, respondent Judge
Pedro C. Rivera, Jr. is hereby found guilty of gross misconduct and conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the judiciary, and is hereby DISMISSED
from the service with prejudice to re-employment in any part of the
government service including government-owned or controlled
corporations, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and privileges (if
any), except the money value of accrued earned leave credits. Respondent
Judge is hereby ORDERED to cease and desist immediately from rendering
any order or decision, or continuing any proceedings, in any case
whatsoever, effective immediately upon receipt of a copy of this Resolution.
SIBAYAN-JOAQUIN V. JAVELLANA
Facts: Eliezer A. Sibayan-Joaquin charged Judge Roberto S. Javellana, acting
presiding judge of the RTC of San Carlos City, Branch 57, with grave
misconduct in the performance of official duties, graft and gross ignorance of
the law. The complaint was an offshoot of a case for estafa filed by Sibayan-
Joaquin for and in behalf of Andersons Group, Inc., against Romeo Tan before
the San Carlos City RTC. Complainant averred that there was an undue delay
in the rendition of judgment in the criminal case, the decision, that had
acquitted the accused Romeo Tan, having been rendered only on the tenth
month after the case was submitted for decision. Respondent judge was also
cited for impropriety by complainant because he was often seen with
Attorney Vic Agravante, counsel for the accused, whose vehicle respondent
judge would even use at times.
Issue: Whether Judge Javellana violated Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Ethics
Ruling: Yes. The Investigating Justice has seen impropriety on the part of
respondent judge in his close association with a counsel for a litigant.
The Court shares the view and disquisition of the Honorable Justice. Judges,
indeed, should be extra prudent in associating with litigants and counsel
appearing before them so as to avoid even a mere perception of possible bias
or partiality. It is not expected, of course, that judges should live in
retirement or seclusion from any social intercourse. Indeed, it may be
desirable, for instance, that they continue, time and work commitments
permitting, to relate to members of the bar in worthwhile endeavors and in
such fields of interest, in general, as are in keeping with the noble aims and
objectives of the legal profession. In pending or prospective litigations before
them, however, judges should be scrupulously careful to avoid anything that
may tend to awaken the suspicion that their personal, social or sundry
relations could influence their objectivity, for not only must judges possess
proficiency in law but that also they must act and behave in such manner that
would assure, with great comfort, litigants and their counsel of the judges'
competence, integrity and independence. The respondent was ADMONISHED
to constantly be circumspect in his conduct and dealings with lawyers who
have pending cases before him.

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR V. JUDGE FLORO
FACTS: It was in 1995 that Atty. Florentino V. Floro, Jr. first applied for
judgeship. A pre-requisite psychological evaluation on him then by the
Supreme Court Clinic Services (SC Clinic) revealed "(e)vidence of ego
disintegration" and "developing psychotic process." Judge Floro later
voluntarily withdrew his application. In June 1998, when he applied anew, the
required psychological evaluation exposed problems with self-esteem, mood
swings, confusion, social/interpersonal deficits, paranoid ideations,
suspiciousness, and perceptual distortions. Both 1995 and 1998 reports
concluded that Atty. Floro was unfit to be a judge.
Because of his impressive academic background, however, the Judicial and
Bar Council (JBC) allowed Atty. Floro to seek a second opinion from private
practitioners. The second opinion appeared favorable thus paving the way to
Atty. Floro’s appointment as Regional Trial Court (RTC) Judge of Branch 73,
Malabon City, on 4 November 1998.
Judge Floro be placed under preventive suspension for the duration of the
investigation against him.
13CHARGES:
(a) The act of circulating calling cards containing self-laudatory statements
regarding qualifications and for announcing in open court during court
session his qualification in violation of Canon 2, Rule 2.02, Canons of Judicial
Conduct;
(b) For allowing the use of his chambers as sleeping quarters;
(c) For rendering resolutions without written orders in violation of Rule 36,
Section 1, 1997 Rules of Procedures;
(d) For his alleged partiality in criminal cases where he declares that he is pro-
accused which is contrary to Canon 2, Rule 2.01, Canons of Judicial Conduct;
As alleged and as proven, the 13 specified charges do not warrant the
supreme penalty of dismissal against Judge Floro
(a) Re: Charge of circulating calling cards containing self-laudatory
statements regarding qualifications AND for announcing in open court
during court session his qualifications in violation of Canon 2, Rule 2.02,
Canons of Judicial Conduct
As narrated by the audit team, Judge Floro was circulating calling cards
bearing his name as the Presiding Judge of RTC, Branch 73, Malabon City,
and indicating therein that he is a "bar exams topnotcher (87.55%)" and
with "full second honors" from the Ateneo de Manila University, A.B. and
LL.B.32 The audit team likewise reported that: "(b)efore the start of court
session, Judge Floro is introduced as a private law practitioner, a graduate of
Ateneo de Manila University with second honors, and a bar topnotcher
during the 1983 Bar Examinations with an average score of 87.55%.
Afterwards, a reading of the Holy Bible, particularly the Book of Revelation
according to Saint John, was made. The people in the courtroom were given
the opportunity to ask Judge Floro questions on the matter read. No
questions were asked; hence the session commenced."33
Judge Floro argues that, per commentary of Justice Ruperto G.
Martin, 34 "the use of professional cards containing the name of the lawyer,
his title, his office and residence is not improper" and that the word "title"
should be broad enough to include a Judge’s legal standing in the bar, his
honors duly earned or even his Law School. Moreover, other lawyers do
include in their calling cards their former/present titles/positions like
President of the Jaycees, Rotary Club, etc., so where then does one draw the
line? Finally, Judge Floro argues that his cards were not being circulated but
were given merely as tokens to close friends or by reciprocity to other
callers considering that common sense dictates that he is not allowed by law
to seek other professional employment.
As to the charge that he had been announcing in open court his
qualifications, Judge Floro counters that it was his branch clerk of court,
Atty. Esmeralda Galang-Dizon, who suggested that during his initial court
session, she would briefly announce his appointment with an introduction
of his school, honors, bar rating and law practice. Naively, Judge Floro
agreed as the introduction was done only during the first week of his
assumption into office.
RULING: Canon 2, Rule 2.02 of the Code of Judicial Conduct says in no
uncertain terms that "a judge should not seek publicity for personal
vainglory." A parallel proscription, this time for lawyers in general, is found
in Rule 3.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility: "a lawyer shall not
use or permit the use of any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive,
undignified, self-laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding his
qualifications or legal services." This means that lawyers and judges alike,
being limited by the exacting standards of their profession, cannot debase
the same by acting as if ordinary merchants hawking their wares. As
succinctly put by a leading authority in legal and judicial ethics, "(i)f lawyers
are prohibited from x x x using or permitting the use of any undignified or
self-laudatory statement regarding their qualifications or legal services (Rule
3.01, Code of Professional Responsibility), with more reasons should judges
be prohibited from seeking publicity for vanity or self-glorification. Judges
are not actors or actresses or politicians, who thrive by publicity."
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court resolves to:
1) FINE Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr. in the total amount of FORTY
THOUSAND (P40,000.00) PESOS for seven of the 13 charges against him in
A.M. No. RTJ-99-1460;
2) RELIEVE Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr. of his functions as Judge of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 73, Malabon City and consider him SEPARATED
from the service due to a medically disabling condition of the mind that
renders him unfit to discharge the functions of his office, effective
immediately;
ANONYNOUS V. JUDGE ACHAS
FACTS: An anonymous letter calls on the Court to look into the morality of
respondent Judge Achas and alleges that: (1) it is of public knowledge in the
city that Judge Achas is living scandalously with a woman who is not his
wife; (2) he lives beyond his means; (3) he is involved with illegal activities
through his connection with bad elements, the kuratongs; ( 4) he comes to
court very untidy and dirty; (5) he decides his cases unfairly in exchange for
material and monetary consideration; and (6) he is involved with
cockfighting/gambling
The respondent judge found "for himself a suitable young lass whom he
occasionally goes out with in public and such a fact is not a secret around
town."8 Judge Achas denied this and no evidence was presented to prove
the contrary. He did admit, however, that he had been estranged from his
wife for the last 26 years. Notwithstanding his admission, the fact remains
that he is still legally married to his wife. The Court, therefore, agrees with
Judge Dungog in finding that it is not commendable, proper or moral for a
judge to be perceived as going out with a woman not his wife. Such is a
blemish to his integrity and propriety, as well as to that of the Judiciary.
RULING: For going out in public with a woman not his wife, Judge Achas has
clearly failed to abide by the above-cited Canons of the New Code of Judicial
Conduct for Philippine Judiciary.
The Court further notes that in A.M. No. MTJ-04-1564,9 Judge Achas was
charged with immorality for cohabiting with a woman not his wife, and with
gross misconduct and dishonesty for personally accepting a cash bond in
relation to a case and not depositing it with the clerk of court, and for
maintaining a flock of fighting cocks and actively participating in cockfights.
The Court, in 2005, found him guilty of gross misconduct for personally
receiving the cash bond and fined him in the amount of ₱15,000.00 with a
stern warning. The charge of immorality was dismissed for lack of evidence.
Although the Court, at the same time, noted that the charge of maintaining
a flock of fighting cocks and participating in cockfights was denied by the
respondent judge, it made no ruling on the charge.
No position demands greater moral righteousness and uprightness from its
occupant than does the judicial office. Judges in particular must be
individuals of competence, honesty and probity, charged as they are with
safeguarding the integrity of the court and its proceedings. He should
behave at all times so as to promote public confidence in the integrity and
impartiality of the judiciary, and avoid impropriety and the appearance of
impropriety in all his activities. His personal behaviour outside the court,
and not only while in the performance of his official duties, must be beyond
reproach, for he is perceived to be the personification of law and justice.
Thus, any demeaning act of a judge degrades the institution he represents.
WHEREFORE, for violation of the New Code of Judicial Conduct, respondent
Judge Rio Concepcion Achas is REPRlMANDED and FINED in the amount of
FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (₱5,000.00), ADMONISHED not to socially mingle
with cockfighting enthusiasts and bettors, and STERNLY WARNED that a
repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.