By Atty. Rolex T. Suplico
This is a case involving a Regional Trial Judge, Peter, and his paramour, Maria. I have changed their real names in order to protect their privacy. Justice Alicia Austria-Martinez wrote the decision for the Supreme Court’s Third Division.
Maria had filed a letter-complaint dated June 13, 2007 against Judge Peter before the Supreme Court for “with gross immorality for having an extra-marital affair with her.”
Maria said that she was introduced to Peter in 2002. He then showered her with food and gifts. Soon, they became lovers. She said that Peter always acted as if “he was single or separated as he acted like a bachelor towards her. x x x. They spent most of their time in his house x x x complainant would sleep over during weekdays and spend entire weekends with respondent. They would dine in public places, watch movies, go to malls, groceries and hear mass together. Respondent lent her money and she ran errands for him such as making reservations for his trips and purchasing items for his house, encode decisions, pay bills and encash checks for him.” In 2005, their relationship soured. “(C)omplainant felt she was being abused by respondent, such as when he wanted to take a picture of them naked after they had sexual contact, when he asked her to buy abortive pills because his son impregnated his girlfriend, and when he (respondent) forced her to utter vulgar words during their intercourse.”
On the other hand, Peter claimed that their relationship was purely platonic. But Maria’s had an “elaborate plan to extort money from him.” He had offered her a job to “to encode simple case facts and test questions in her house using respondent’s laptop; that it was arranged that he would stop by her house to hand her materials for typing, and later pick up the same from her residence; that she later offered to run other errands for him in exchange for a reasonable fee.” Then, she started to dropped unannounced at his house. Thereafter, he “noticed a shift in her conversation, relating to him lurid sex experiences with her previous boyfriends. She also insinuated that it was now accepted in society for married men to have paramours, upon which respondent bluntly told her, personally and in several text messages, that he had no such inclination.” When she “realized that all the good things she was getting from him were coming to an end and that he was not falling for her blackmail, she started to become vicious and physically assaulted him, x x x.”
The Court referred Maria’s complaint to the Executive Justice of the Court of Appeals (CA), for investigation, report and recommendation.
In due time, the Investigating Justice of the CA submitted a Report, which “found respondent guilty of immorality and recommended his suspension for six months without salary and other benefits.” It stated that “(t)here were admissions on respondent’s part which revealed the existence of an illicit affair.” First, Maria disclosed that Peter “had skin tags between his thighs which respondent admitted. Complainant would not have had knowledge of such intimate and concealed marks unless she was able to see respondent naked. While respondent claimed that he may have divulged such fact in one of their casual conversations, such disclosure goes against respondent’s very claim that what they had was only a platonic employer-employee relationship.” Second, the pirtures taken by Maria proved her familiarity with Peter’s house which “also show that some of their sexual trysts took place in respondent’s house.” Third, Peter asked Maria to assist him in the solemnization of 3 marriages when he could have utilized an office staff. “From these, it could be inferred that complainant’s services were utilized so that they could be together in the evening after the reception.” Peter also asked her to encode his draft decisions, when he has 4 stenographers, thereby “compromising the integrity of the court records.”
However, “(d)espite the finding of immorality, x x x, the ultimate penalty of dismissal from service, as prayed for by complainant, should not be imposed upon respondent, as records revealed that complainant was equally guilty, if not more so, in the whole sordid affair.” The Report found that Maria’s “claim that she was misled by respondent into thinking that he was single or unmarried, since she admitted in one of her affidavits that by his age and the way he carried himself, she knew that he was really a married man and it was up to her discretion whether to reciprocate respondent’s affections knowing respondent’s marital status.”
At this point, the Supreme Court reiterated that:
“The Court has not been sparing in its exhortation of judges that they should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities. No position is more demanding as regards the moral righteousness and uprightness of any individual than a seat on the Bench; thus, their personal behavior, not only while in the performance of official duties but also outside the court, must be beyond reproach, for they are, as they so aptly are perceived to be, the visible representation of law and of justice.”
The Court held that “respondent failed to adhere to the exacting standards of morality and decency which every member of the judiciary is expected to observe. Respondent is a married man, yet he engaged in a romantic relationship with complainant. Granting arguendo that respondent’s relationship with complainant never went physical or intimate, still he cannot escape the charge of immorality, for his own admissions show that his relationship with her was more than professional, more than acquaintanceship, more than friendly.”
“Immorality,” the Court said, “under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC dated September 11, 2001 on the discipline of Justices and Judges, is a serious charge which carries any of the following sanctions: (1) dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court may determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or controlled corporations, provided, however, that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave credits; (2) suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than three but not exceeding six months; or (3) a fine of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00.”
The Report recommended the penalty of 6 motnhs suspension without salary and benefits, instead of dismissal from the service. It considered that Maria “was equally, if not more guilty x x x. He also considered respondent’s length of service and the fact that this was the first time respondent had been charged with immorality, and it did not appear from the records that he had been previously charged with any offense or that there was any pending administrative case against him.”
The Court agrees with the Report’s observation “that complainant clearly consented to the illicit affair.” She is “a clearly enamored and highly obsessed woman, as proven by her propensity to be at the exact place and time where respondent happened to be and her insistence on having a “formal closure” between them. Records also revealed that complainant sought out respondent’s wife, parents and children, meeting them personally or texting them, when respondent started ignoring her.” He had “correctly found incredible complainant’s claim that she was misled by respondent into thinking that he was an unmarried man, as complainant could have easily verified respondent’s status, he being a public figure, which information was readily available to anyone. Complainant also admitted in one of her affidavits that the very first time she met respondent, she knew by the way he carried himself and his age that he was a married man; but because of his perseverance, her heart was won.” She is, as the Report stated, “the the epitome of the saying that: “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.”
The Supeme Court meted Judge Peter with suspension for six months without salary and other benefits, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.\
(Geroy v. Calderon, AM No. RTJ-07-2092, December 8, 2008)
