3/3/2016 A.M.No.

MTJ071663

TodayisThursday,March03,2016

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

SECONDDIVISION

A.M.No.MTJ071663March26,2010

ROLANDERNESTMARIEJOSESPELMANS,Complainant,
vs.
JUDGEGAYDIFREDOT.OCAMPO,MunicipalTrialCourt,Polomolok,SouthCotabato,Respondent.

DECISION

ABAD,J.:

ThisisacaseabouttheimproperconductofanMTCjudgewhokeptpropertiesownedbythecomplainantwhile
conductingapreliminaryinvestigation.

TheFactsandtheCase

OnApril8,2006complainantRolandErnestMarieJoseSpelmans(Spelmans),aBelgian,filedbeforetheOffice
oftheOmbudsman,Mindanao,acomplaintfortheftandgraftandcorruptionagainstrespondentMunicipalTrial
Court(MTC)JudgeGaydifredoOcampo(JudgeOcampo)ofPolomolok,SouthCotabato.1

Spelmans alleged in his affidavit that in 2002 his wife, Annalyn Villan (Villan), filed a complaint for theft against
Joelito Rencio (Rencio) and his wife from whom Spelmans rented a house in Polomolok, South Cotabato.
Spelmansclaimed,however,thatthiscomplaintwasbuthiswifesschemefortakingouthispersonalproperties
fromthathouse.Inthecourseoftheinvestigationofthecomplaint,JudgeOcampo,togetherwiththeparties,held
anocularinspectionofthatrentedhouseandanotheronewhereSpelmanskeptsomeofthepersonalbelongings
ofhislatemother.

During the ocular inspection, Judge Ocampo allegedly took pieces of antique, including a marble bust of
Spelmansmother,aflowerpot,astatue,andacopperscaleofjustice.Aweeklater,JudgeOcampowentback
andfurthertooksixOakwoodchairsanditstable,fourgoldchampagneglasses,andadeerhornchandelier.2In
the meantime, the Bureau of Immigration happened to detain Spelmans in Manila and let him free only on
January28,2003.3

The Ombudsman, Mindanao, referred Spelmans complaint against Judge Ocampo to the Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA). In his comment of August 8, 20064 Judge Ocampo denied the charge, pointing out that
Spelmans wife, Villan (the complainant in that theft case), gave him certain household items for safekeeping
before she filed the case of theft against Rencio. On August 28, 2002, however, after conducting a preliminary
investigationinthecase,JudgeOcampodismissedVillanscomplaint.

Only in 2006, according to Judge Ocampo, when he received a copy of Spelmans complaint for grave
misconduct did he learn of the couples separation and his unwitting part in their legal battles. As a last note,
Judge Ocampo said that instead of hurling baseless accusations at him, Spelmans should have thanked him
becausehekepthispersonalpropertiesingoodcondition.

InasupplementalcomplaintdatedAugust30,20065SpelmansfurtherallegedthatJudgeOcamporequestedhim
tosignanaffidavitwhichclearedtheJudgeandprayedforthedismissaloftheadministrativecomplaint.6

On October 17, 2006 OCA found Judge Ocampo guilty of committing acts of impropriety and maintaining close
affinity with a litigant in violation of Canons 1 and 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine
Judiciary.7Since,underRule140oftheRevisedRulesofCourt,asamended,aviolationofSupremeCourtrules,
directives, and circulars constitutes a less serious charge, punishable either with suspension or fine, the OCA
recommendedtheimpositionofafineofP5,000.00onJudgeOcampowithasternwarningthatarepetitionofthe

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/am_mtj071663_2010.html 1/4
3/3/2016 A.M.No.MTJ071663

WECONCUR:

ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice

ARTUROD.BRION MARIANOC.DELCASTILLO
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

JOSEPORTUGALPEREZ
AssociateJustice

Footnotes

1Rollo,pp.410.

2Id.at56.

3Id.at44.

4Id.at2122.

5Id.at3738.

6Id.at40.

7EffectiveasofJune1,2004.

8Rollo,pp.13.

9RULESOFCOURT,Rule140,Section11(B)asamendedbyA.M.No.01810SC.

10Id.,Section11(C).

11 Santos v. ArcayaChua, A.M. No. RTJ072093, February 13, 2009, 579 SCRA 17, 30: As defined,
misconductisatransgressionofsomeestablishedanddefiniteruleofaction,aforbiddenact,adereliction
ofduty,unlawfulbehavior,willfulincharacter,improperorwrongbehaviorwhile"gross,"hasbeendefined
as"outofallmeasurebeyondallowanceflagrantshamefulsuchconductasisnottobeexcused.

12Canon1.Independence.Judicialindependenceisaprerequisitetotheruleoflawandafundamental
guarantee of a fair trial. A judge shall therefore uphold and exemplify judicial independence in both its
individualandinstitutionalaspects.Section6.Judgesshallbeindependentinrelationtosocietyingeneral
andinrelationtotheparticularpartiestoadisputewhichheorshehastoadjudicate.
13Canon2.Integrity.Integrityisessentialnotonlytotheproperdischargeofthejudicialofficebutalsoto
the personal demeanor of judges. Section 1. Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above
reproach,butthatisperceivedtobesointheviewofareasonableobserver.

14Canon4.Propriety.Proprietyandtheappearanceofproprietyareessentialtotheperformanceofallthe
activitiesofajudge.Section1.Judgesshallavoidimproprietyandtheappearanceofimproprietyinallof
theiractivities.

15 See Hallasgo v. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 171340, September 11, 2009, citing Malabanan v.
Metrillo,A.M.No.P041875,February6,2008,544SCRA1,78andRodriguezv.Eugenio,A.M.No.RTJ
062216,April20,2007,521SCRA489,505506.

16AbadescoJr.v.Rafer,A.M.No.MTJ061622,January27,2006,480SCRA228,234.

17 Under Section 11(A) in relation to Section 8(3) of Rule 140, as amended by A.M. No. 010810SC,
effectiveOctober1,2001:SEC.11.Sanctions.A.Iftherespondentisguiltyofaseriouscharge,anyof
the following sanctions may be imposed: 1. Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the
benefitsastheCourtmaydetermine,anddisqualificationfromreinstatementorappointmenttoanypublic
office, including governmentowned or controlled corporations. Provided, however, that the forfeiture of

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/am_mtj071663_2010.html 3/4