In a 55-page en banc decision, the Supreme Court’s 15 justices declared Baguio City regional trial court (RTC) Judge Clarence Villanueva guilty of immorality for maintaining a mistress.
The high court dismissed Villanueva from his post; barred him from holding public office, including with government-owned or -controlled corporations; and ordered his retirement benefits forfeited except for accrued leave credits.
Villanueva’s dismissal stemmed from a complaint for immorality filed by Judge Ruben Ayson, who claimed that Villanueva had a daughter with his mistress Emy Tumaneng. The child, named Shaira Marjorie Tumaneng and born on March 31, 1996, was baptized on Oct. 20, 1996 at the Don Bosco Parish Church.
Ayson said Villanueva’s clerk of court, Pauline Badul, and Abraham de Castro served as Shaira’s godmother and godfather, respectively.
"The Code of Judicial Ethics mandates that the conduct of a judge must be free of even a whiff of impropriety not only with respect to his discharge of judicial duties, but also to his behavior outside his sala and as a private individual... A judge’s official life cannot simply be detached from his personal existence. His public as well as his private life must be above suspicion," the SC said.
The Supreme Court said the charge of immorality proven against Villanueva "demonstrates his unfitness to remain in office and continue to discharge the functions of a judge."
"Rule 140 of the Rules of Court classifies immorality as a serious offense. It is punishable by dismissal from the service with accessory penalties. With the view we take of the case, there is no reason for not meting out the severest form of disciplinary sanction, especially since the offense was committed in the very city where the respondent judge holds office," the high court ruled.
The SC said Villanueva seems to have made little attempt to be discreet about his liaison with a woman who is not his wife.
Baguio Judges Abraham Borreta, Amado Caguioa, Antonio Esteves were fined P2,000 each and warned against repeating their improper conduct, while Judge Antonio Reyes was slapped with a fine of P30,000 and warned that a repetition of his offense would be dealt with more severely.
The high court also ordered Caguioa to pay another P10,000 fine for not strictly adhering to the prescription of SC Circular No. 12 dated Oct. 12, 1986, and warned him to stop the practice of allowing court stenographers and interpreters to participate in ex-parte hearings.
The P30,000 fine on Reyes stemmed from a complaint filed by Ramon Ilusorio on Sept. 20, 2001.
Ilusorio alleged that he had a case against the Baguio Country Club Corp. Inc., docketed as Civil Case No. 4537-R in Baguio RTC Branch 61, which was presided over by Reyes.
He said Reyes denied his motion to inhibit himself from the case, being a classmate of lawyer and Baguio Country Club president Federico Agcaoili, and their plea for an injunction.
During the resolution of the case, Ilusorio said he received information that Reyes’ account with the Baguio Country Club — amounting to P26,175 — was charged to the account of Agcaoili and reversed against the club’s representation expenses made through the club’s accounts receivables manager, Elizabeth Narciza.
"While complainant Ilusorio’s evidence cannot, in our appreciation, support a finding of guilt for bribery or violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, it is certainly not amiss to say that... Reyes’ conduct under the premises falls short of the exacting standards for prudence expected of members of the bench. Trite as it may sound, a judge’s conduct must, at all times, be characterized by propriety and decorum. But beyond proper decorum, such conduct must be above and beyond suspicion," the SC said in finding Reyes guilty.
The SC said Reyes’ acceptance of a favor from Agcaoili during the pendency of Ilusorio’s civil case against the Baguio Country Club is highly questionable.
"It certainly does not speak well of Reyes’ sense of delicadeza (sense of propriety). The likelihood that any favor from a club member may somehow influence or affect the respondent judge’s judicial functions with respect to the club’s pending case in his court or any case which the said sponsor may later have in the RTC of Baguio is not farfetched," the SC said.
The court said all members of the bench are expected to conduct themselves beyond reproach and suspicion, adding that Rule 2.03 of the Code of Judicial Conduct contains a caveat against allowing the prestige of the judicial office to be used or lent to advance the private interests of others or to convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence a judge.
"Reyes’ acts of impropriety and patent lack of delicadeza verily run counter to the injunction prescribed by the afore-cited rule of the Code," the High Tribunal said.
On the other hand, the fines slapped on Borreta, Caguioa, Esteves and Villanueva stemmed from a complaint filed by Ayson, who claimed the judges gambled and drank on court premises during office hours.