INSTANCE SHOWING SIMPLE MISCONDUCT OF A JUDGE (Judicial Ethics)

Aida R. Campos, Alistair R. Campos, and Charmaine R. Campos v. Judge Eliseo M.

Campos
A.M. No. MTJ-10-1761, February 8, 2012
Carpio, J.

FACTS:
This is a complaint for serious misconduct, immorality and dishonesty filed by
complainants against respondent, former Presiding Judge of the MTC of Bayugan,
Agusan del Sur.

Complainant Aida and respondent were married in 1981 and had two children,
complainants Alistair and Charmaine. In 2008, respondent filed a petition for Declaration
of Nullity of Marriage, alleging that he and Aida were both psychologically incapacitated
to comply with the essential marital obligations. For his part, respondent is a homosexual
who could not be intimate with his wife unless he imagined he was with another man,
while his wife had affairs with other men as a result of his homosexuality. To her
defense, Aida denied the allegations and filed for legal separation. According to her,
respondent wanted their marriage annulled so that he could marry another woman with
whom he was having a relationship.

In the meantime, a separate case was pending against the respondent, to which a certain
parcel of registered land might be taken from the their property in the event of loss. Facts
show that the title to such land was kept by respondent in his drawer. When respondent
could not find the title in his usual place for safekeeping, he sought the advice of the
Register of Deeds who told him to execute the affidavit of loss, to which he did.
Respondent then registered the title but in the name of Alistair, a minor at that time.

ISSUE:
Is respondent guilty of immorality, dishonesty, and serious misconduct?

HELD:
NO, respondent is not guilty of immorality, dishonesty and serious misconduct but only
simple misconduct.

First, the complainants failed to present any proof of respondent’s alleged relationship
with another woman, so as to justify a charge for immorality. There was no evidence
presented that respondent engaged in scandalous conduct that would warrant the
imposition of disciplinary action against him. However, the Court reminded respondent
of the judge's duty to conduct himself in a way that is consistent with the dignity of the
judicial office. As such, he must comport himself at all times in such a manner that his
conduct, official or otherwise, can bear the most searching scrutiny of the public that
looks up to him as the epitome of integrity and justice.
Second, respondent was not guilty of dishonesty as regards the declaration of loss of title
because respondent did not appear to have acted in bad faith or committed dishonesty in
executing the affidavit of loss of the title to the property. As shown by the facts, he
merely took the advice of the Register of Deeds in the execution of the document.

Third, while respondent has not committed any serious misconduct, it is clear that
respondent is guilty of simple misconduct. In this case, respondent knew at that time of
the registration of the property that he had a pending case and that he could possibly lose
the case. In order to manipulate the situation and taking advantage of his knowledge of
the law, respondent caused the registration of the property in Alistair’s name with the
intention of defrauding a possible judgment-obligee. Clearly, it was an improper behavior
that warrants a disciplinary sanction by the Court.