LIWANAG vs JUDGE LUSTRE AM No.

MTJ-98-1168, April 21, 1999 FACTS Complainants husband, Jose Zafra, files twelve counts of violation of BP ! The Assistant Provincial Prosecutor filed twelve informations for violation of BP which was assi"ned at the #TC presided b$ Jud"e %ustre, herein respondent! After the informations were filed, the accused posted bail! &owever, their arrai"nment were postponed several times at the instance of the accused! Complainant went to see Jud"e %ustre at his chamber to in'uire about the case filed b$ her husband and wh$ the accused have not $et been arrai"ned! She as(ed the Jud"e if it is possible to schedule hearin"s on Januar$ and Februar$ and ever$ month thereafter wherein he responded in the affirmative and told the complainant to come bac(! As re'uested, she went to see Jud"e %ustre at his chamber! There he told her the he prepared an order of the accused! She than(ed him and said that if the accused would pa$, she would "ive him five percent of its as a to(en of "ratitude! At that point, Jud"e %ustre stood up and told the complainant that he does not need the mone$! )hile Jud"e %ustre was "ivin" the cop$ of the order, he touched her shoulder down to her breast! &e told the complainant that he acceded to her re'uest and that she should come bac( before the hearin"! Because of what happened wherein the Jud"e molested and too( advanta"e of her, complainant did not "o bac(! The Jud"e cancelled the hearin"s on all the dates as per re'uest of the counsel of the accused! B$ the wa$ thin"s were "oin", she could sense that Jud"e %ustre is dela$in" the case and that the complainant and her husband were runnin" out of mone$! Because of the dilemma, complainant decided to see the Jud"e and as(ed him wh$ he cancelled the hearin"s! The Jud"e responded that the complainant fooled him because she did not come bac( to him as per re'uest, whereas he acceded to her earlier re'uest! Jud"e %ustre told complainant that she must obe$ his wishes if she wants the case to "o smoothl$! The$ both went to the Jud"es car where he (issed her on the lips and caressed her breast! Complainant could not do an$thin" as the Jud"e was deliberatel$ dela$in" her case! The Jud"e then a"ain ordered her to come bac( to his office! )hen complainant came bac(, the Jud"e the a"ain (issed her, caressed her bod$ and ordered her to masturbate him! Complainant could not do an$thin" but obe$! The Jud"e then as(ed her to "o with him to %a"una de Ba$ *nn! )hen she refused, he "ot an"r$! Complainants law$er filed a #otion to Set case for hearin" and complainant did not "o bac( and see Jud"e %ustre at %a"una de Ba$ *nn! As a result, no schedule was set for April and #a$, instead the Jud"e made the settin" in June! Complainant went to see Jud"e %ustre to in'uire wh$ the case was not scheduled on #a$! &e responded that he waited for the complainant but she did not come!

&e told the complainant that she should not fool him, +masama daw si$an" ma"alit,! She re'uested Jud"e %ustre to "ive complainant monthl$ hearin"s! The Jud"e said that he would if she would follow his wishes! &e e-posed his penis and told the complainant to perform +fellatio,! Jud"e %ustre further made arran"ements that the$ would meet and he would brin" her to .iverview .esort! Complainant could not refuse because of the threats on her case! The Jud"e told her that there would be hearin" for Jul$ and Au"ust! Then he undressed himself and ordered her to perform +fellatio, on him and complainant obe$ed as she was willin" to do an$thin" for the future of her son and famil$! The same arran"ement too( place until complainant reali/ed that she could not ta(e it an$more! Complainant is emboldened with dis"ust and frustration and she see(s the intervention of the &onorable Supremem Court! Apart from the letter and sworn statement, complainant also sent photo"raphs showin" her and respondent to"ether in various places, five of which were ta(en from .iverview .esort! She also submitted receipts issued b$ the resort! .espondents defense is anchored on denial and that the char"es a"ainst him are +vile products of 0complainants1 malicious and pre2udiced mind,! &e claimed that he could not have been in the chamber as earl$ as 3455 am as alle"ed b$ the complainant as he usuall$ arrives for wor( some five to ten minutes before 6455 in the mornin"! &e further pointed out that at the a"e of 73, with a heart ailment and diabetes, +se- is be$ond 0his1 ph$sical capacit$,! The Supreme Court resolved to refer the matter to Jud"e 8eralde/, 9-ecutive Jud"e of the .TC for investi"ation, report and recommendation! *n his report, Jud"e 8eralde/ recommended dismissal of the complaint a"ainst respondent since complainant failed to establish his "uilt be$ond reasonable doubt! &e pointed out that complainant merel$ relied on photo"raphs showin" her and respondent to"ether, which do not establish the acts complained of! The Court thereafter referred the case to the :ffice of the Court Administrator for evaluation, report and recommendation! The :CA find credible the alle"ations of complainant %ualhati %iwana"! The :CA recommended that the respondent be dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits! *SS;9 )hether or not respondent is "uilt$ of "ross immoralit$ and "rave misconduct unbecomin" of his profession! &9%< Proof be$ond reasonable doubt is not necessar$ in decidin" administrative cases! :nl$ substantial evidence is re'uired wherein a fact ma$ be established if it is supported b$ evidence that which reasonable mind mi"ht accept as ade'uate to 2ustif$ a conclusion!

8iven this re'uirement, the court finds enou"h evidence to sufficientl$ establish complainants case! *t is true that the picture do not show respondent and complainant actuall$ en"a"in" in an$ form of se-ual con"ress! &owever, this is understandable since $ nature, such acts are not proper sub2ect of photo"raphs! .espondent failed to offer an$ plausible e-planation wh$ he was seen with complainant comin" out of what was apparentl$ a private room! As the records now stand, the court a"rees with the court administrators assessment that respondent failed to live up to the hi"h standard of conduct re'uired of members of the bench! &e "rossl$ violated his dut$ to uphold the inte"rit$ of the 2udiciar$ and to avoid impropriet$ not onl$ in the public but in the private life as well! The Court cannot countenance an$ act or omission, on the part of the officials at ever$ level in the administration of 2ustice, which erodes rather than enhances the publics faith and trust in the 2udiciar$, the respondent is found "uilt$ of "ross misconduct!