Improprieties

Judges should avoid impropriety or appearance of impropriety in all of their activities. They should conduct themselves in a way consistent with the dignity of the judicial office. This is the rule applied in the case of a Metropolitan Trial Court Judge in Pasig City (Judge JR).

Judge JR habitually invited her staff particularly Amy, Julie and Connie to go with her in “night gimmicks” from 10 p.m. to 4 a.m. the following day. As a result the staff usually either went on leave or arrived late the following day. One time upon persistent request, Julie and company joined JR in a comedy bar in Quezon City where they stayed up to 4 a.m. the next day. Judge JR then brought them to their respective homes and went to sleep in her chambers where she had a big aparador. She continued to sleep in the chambers after going out for evening “gimmicks” with her staff. She would usually be fetched by a certain Colonel at 12 midnight and return at 4 a.m. Then at another time Judge JR invited the staff for lunch at her residence. While inside the house Judge JR gave Connie a glass of red wine from which she pretended to take a sip. Thereafter, Judge JR herself consumed the remainder. Then they joined the rest of the staff where they consumed gin pomelo.

For three consecutive Fridays, the Judge also invited her staff and other court employees to a drinking spree in the courtroom after office hours. At another time when Julie arrived at the office about 7 p.m. she saw Judge JR about to leave the office and learned earlier she was inebriated and sleeping on the bench outside the office where empty bottles of alcoholic drinks were found in the garbage can.

Then several times Judge JR conducted staff meetings wearing T-shirt, slippers and faded maong pants folded a little below the knee as if she was in her house. Oftentimes she would wear the same clothes she wore the previous day which showed that she resided in the chambers.

For all these actuations, and for other acts and conducts, Amy Julie and Connie, among others, filed administrative complaints against Judge JR for unethical conduct, conduct unbecoming a lady judge.

Judge JR however did not answer the charges against her as she apparently fled and went abroad. Due to her absence she was declared to have waived her right to answer or comment and adduce evidence on the allegations contained in the five administrative complaints filed against her by her staff and by litigants in her court.

Hence the SC found Judge JR unfit to discharge her functions as Metropolitan Trial Court Judge. According to the SC, pursuant to the New Code of Judicial which took effect on June 1, 2004, judges shall maintain order and decorum in all proceedings before the court and be patient, dignified and courteous in relation to litigants, witnesses, lawyers and others with whom the judge deals in official capacity. Judges shall require similar conduct from legal representatives, court staff and others subject to their influence, direction or control. Her presence in those places during her frequent nocturnal “gimmicks” impairs the respect due her, which in turn necessarily affects the image of the judiciary. A judge is a visible representation of the judiciary and, more often than not, the public cannot separate the judge from the judiciary. Moreover her act of bringing some of her staff to her weekday “gimmicks” that causes them to be absent or late for work disrupts the speedy administration of service. Judge JR thus failed to heed the mandate of the New Code of Judicial Conduct which provides that “Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their activities” (Section 1). As the subject of constant public scrutiny, they must also “accept personal restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizenry and should do so freely and willingly. In particular, judges shall conduct themselves in a way that is consistent with the dignity of the judicial office” (Section 3).

So Judge JR was dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits except accrued leave credits, if any, and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch of the government, including government owned and controlled corporations (Flordeliza et. al. vs. Reyes etc. A.M. No. MTJ-06-1625 September 18, 2009, 600 SCRA, 345, 364).

* * *

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call Tel. 7249445.

* * *

E-mail at: [email protected]