The Supreme Court recently dismissed from service a Regional Trial Court (RTC) judge for subjecting two of his subordinates to unwelcome sexual advances and acts of lasciviousness.
In a 51-page decision, the Supreme Court dismissed Executive Judge Rexel Pacuribot of Branch 27, RTC, of Gingoog City, Misamis Oriental for gross misconduct and immorality prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
The Supreme Court likewise ordered the forfeiture of all his retirement benefits and with prejudice to re-employment in any government branch.
Pacuribot was also ordered to immediately cease and desist from rendering any order or decision, or from continuing any proceedings effective upon receipt of the decision, and to show cause why he should not be disbarred as a member of the Philippine Bar.
The case against Pacuribot stemmed from two affidavit-complaints filed by Sherlita Tan, court stenographer of Branch 27, and Johanna Villafranca, Clerk II of the Gingoog City Parole and Probation Office, both of whom were married.
The two victims charged Pacuribot with sexual harassment for having committed repeated acts of sexual harassment and violence on their respective persons.
Pacuribot was also earlier charged in two anonymous letters with terrorizing and harassing employees of the Gingoog City Hall of Justice, and with maintaining an illicit relationship and fathering two children with a certain Sheryl Gamulo.
However, both of these earlier charges were set aside by the Supreme Court for having no merit and for having been rendered moot.
The High Court adopted the findings of Investigating Justice Teresita Dy-Liacco Flores of the Court of Appeals, Cagayan de Oro City Station, that Pacuribot, “over long periods of time persistently solicited sexual favors from Tan and Villafranca.”
The Supreme Court said both victims alleged that Pacuribot had taken them to a motel on separate occasions, where the latter succeeded in raping them and in making them perform sexual acts on him against their will.
The Supreme Court found that, in Tan’s case, Pacuribot’s advances continued even in the office, as Pacuribot would “grab her blouse” and “kiss her neck saying that she smells so sweet” whenever she would go inside his chamber.
The High Court also found there had been occasions when Pacuribot would summon Villafranca to his chamber on the pretext of discussing probation matters, only to grab her, kiss her, and leave kiss marks on her neck and chest.
“Judge Pacuribot’s conduct indubitably bears the marks of impropriety and immorality. His severely abusive and outrageous acts, which are an affront to women, unmistakably constitute sexual harassment because they necessarily result in an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment for the employee(s),’” said the Supreme Court.
The High Court also said that “the audacity under which the sexual violation of the complainants were committed and the seeming impunity with which they were perpetrated by Pacuribot shock our sense of morality.”
The Supreme Court emphasized that Pacuribot, by his act of having sexual intercourse with his two subordinates, “violated the trust reposed on his high office and completely failed to live up to the noble ideas and strict standards of morality required of members of the Judiciary.”