ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
November-2001 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 137968 November 6, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRE DELOS SANTOS

  • G.R. Nos. 123138-39 November 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. HONESTO LLANDELAR

  • A.M. MTJ-01-1375 November 13, 2001 - REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT IN THE MTCs of CALASIAO. BINMALEY

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1601 November 13, 2001 - ELIEZER A. SIBAYAN-JOAQUIN v. ROBERTO S. JAVELLANA

  • G.R. No. 104629 November 13, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIUS KINOK

  • G.R. No. 134498 November 13, 2001 - CELIA M. MERIZ v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL

  • G.R. Nos. 135454-56 November 13, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. RODERICK SANTOS

  • A.M. No. CA-01-10-P November 14, 2001 - ALDA C. FLORIA v. CURIE F. SUNGA, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-01-1518 November 14, 2001 - ANTONIO A. ARROYO v. SANCHO L. ALCANTARA

  • G.R. No. 122736 November 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FROILAN PADILLA

  • G.R. No. 123819 November 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. STEPHEN MARK WHISENHUNT

  • G.R. No. 133877 November 14, 2001 - RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION v. ALFA RTW MANUFACTURING CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 133910 November 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSE VIRREY y DEHITO

  • G.R. No. 135511-13 November 14, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ENTICO MARIANO y EXCONDE

  • G.R. No. 137613 November 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSALITO CABOQUIN

  • G.R. No. 138914 November 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EFREN MANTES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142870 November 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DINDO F. PAJOTAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 143513 & 143590 November 14, 2001 - POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES v. COURT OF APPEALS and FIRESTONE CERAMICS

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1599 November 15, 2001 - TRANQUILINO F. MERIS v. JUDGE FLORENTINO M. ALUMBRES

  • G.R. No. 123213 November 15, 2001 - NEPOMUCENA BRUTAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126584 November 15, 2001 - VALLEY LAND RESOURCES, INC., ET AL. v. VALLEY GOLF CLUB INC.

  • G.R. No. 127897 November 15, 2001 - DELSAN TRANSPORT LINES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129018 November 15, 2001 - CARMELITA LEAÑO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136017 November 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JERRY BANTILING

  • G.R. No. 136143 November 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. AGAPITO CABOTE a.k.a. "PITO"

  • G.R. No. 137255 November 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOEL MAMALAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137369 November 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ALIAS KOBEN VISTA

  • G.R. No. 141811 November 15, 2001 - FIRST METRO INVESTMENT CORPORATION v. ESTE DEL SOL MOUNTAIN RESERVE

  • G.R. No. 145275 November 15, 2001 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. LA CAMPANA FABRICA DE TABACOS

  • G.R. No. 148326 November 15, 2001 - PABLO C. VILLABER Petitioner v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and REP. DOUGLAS R. CAGAS

  • A.M. No. MTJ-01-1382 November 16, 2001 - MARIO W. CHILAGAN v. EMELINA L. CATTILING

  • A.M. No. P-00-1411 November 16, 2001 - FELICIDAD JACOB v. JUDITH T. TAMBO

  • G.R. No. 120274 November 16, 2001 - SPOUSES FRANCISCO A. PADILLA and GERALDINE S. PADILLA v. COURT OF APPEALS and SPOUSES CLAUDIO AÑONUEVO and CARMELITA AÑONUEVO

  • G.R. No. 127003 November 16, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. FAUSTINO GABON

  • G.R. Nos. 132875-76 November 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO G. JALOSJOS

  • G.R. No. 132916 November 16, 2001 - RUFINA TANCINCO v. GSIS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133437 November 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RONALD SAMSON

  • G.R. No. 134486 November 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLEMENTE DAYNA

  • G.R. No. 135038 November 16, 2001 - ROLANDO Y. TAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142654 November 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. ROLANDO MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. 143802 November 16, 2001 - REYNOLAN T. SALES v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129175 November 19, 2001 - RUBEN N. BARRAMEDA, ET AL. v. ROMEO ATIENZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130945 November 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO CONDINO

  • G.R. No. 132724 November 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RENIEL SANAHON

  • G.R. Nos. 138358-59 November 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLAUDIO B. DELA PEÑA

  • G.R. No. 138661 November 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JERSON E. ACOJEDO

  • G.R. No. 140920 November 19, 2001 - JUAN LORENZO B. BORDALLO, ET AL. v. THE PROFESSIONAL REGULATIONS COMMISSION AND THE BOARD OF MARINE DECK OFFICERS

  • G.R. No. 148560 November 19, 2001 - JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA v. SANDIGANBAYAN (Third Division) and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 91486 November 20, 2001 - ALBERTO G. PINLAC v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122276 November 20, 2001 - RODRIGO ALMUETE ET AL., v. MARCELO ANDRES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126204 November 20, 2001 - NAPOCOR v. PHILIPP BROTHERS OCEANIC

  • G.R. Nos. 126538-39 November 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RODELIO MARCELO

  • G.R. No. 129234 November 20, 2001 - THERMPHIL v. COURT OF APPEALS ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140032 November 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANGEL C. BALDOZ and MARY GRACE NEBRE

  • G.R. No. 140692 November 20, 2001 - ROGELIO C. DAYAN v. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144401 November 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEL GALISIM

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1207 November 21, 2001 - NBI v. FRANCISCO D. VILLANUEVA

  • A.M. No. P- 01-1520 November 21, 2001 - MARILOU A. CABANATAN v. CRISOSTOMO T. MOLINA

  • A.M. Nos. RTJ-00-1561 & RTJ-01-1659 November 21, 2001 - CARINA AGARAO v. Judge JOSE J. PARENTELA

  • G.R. No. 125356 November 21, 2001 - SUPREME TRANSLINER INC. v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132839 November 21, 2001 - ERIC C. ONG v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 133879 November 21, 2001 - EQUATORIAL REALTY DEVELOPMENT v. MAYFAIR THEATER

  • G.R. No. 136748 November 21, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANITO ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137457 November 21, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSAURO SIA

  • G.R. No. 141881 November 21, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. VIRGILIO BERNABE y RAFOL

  • A.M. No RTJ-01-1664 November 22, 2001 - ALFREDO CAÑADA v. VICTORINO MONTECILLO

  • G.R. No. 109648 November 22, 2001 - PH CREDIT CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS and CARLOS M. FARRALES

  • G.R. Nos. 111502-04 November 22, 2001 - REYNALDO H. JAYLO, ET AL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 113218 November 22, 2001 - ALEJANDRO TECSON v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113541 November 22, 2001 - HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORP. EMPLOYEES UNION v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118462 November 22, 2001 - LEOPOLDO GARRIDO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123893 November 22, 2001 - LUISITO PADILLA , ET AL. v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129660 November 22, 2001 - BIENVENIDO P. JABAN and LYDIA B. JABAN v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130628 November 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAULINO LEONAR

  • G.R. No. 132743 November 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCIAL CAÑARES Y ORBES

  • G.R. No. 133861 November 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO SO

  • G.R. Nos. 135853-54 November 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OPENIANO LACISTE

  • G.R. No. 135863 November 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VlRGILIO LORICA

  • G.R. Nos. 136317-18 November 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO YAOTO

  • G.R. No. 136586 November 22, 2001 - JON AND MARISSA DE YSASI v. ARTURO AND ESTELA ARCEO

  • G.R. No. 139563 November 22, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.. v. AMADOR BISMONTE y BERINGUELA

  • G.R. Nos. 139959-60 November 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DEOGRACIAS BURGOS

  • G.R. No. 141602 November 22, 2001 - PACSPORTS PHILS. v. NICCOLO SPORTS, INC.

  • G.R. No. 142316 November 22, 2001 - FRANCISCO A.G. DE LIANO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143939 November 22, 2001 - HEIRS OF ROSARIO POSADAS REALTY v. ROSENDO.BANTUG

  • G.R. No. 145475 November 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EUSEBIO PUNSALAN

  • G.R. No. 145851 November 22, 2001 - ABELARDO B. LICAROS v. THE SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 146683 November 22, 2001 - CIRILA ARCABA v. ERLINDA TABANCURA VDA. DE BATOCAEL, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1562 November 23, 2001 - CAVITE CRUSADE FOR GOOD GOVERNMENT v. JUDGE NOVATO CAJIGAL

  • G.R. No. 126334 November 23, 2001 - EMILIO EMNACE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128886 November 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS JULIANDA, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142044 November 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TOBECHUKWU NICHOLAS

  • G.R. No. 144309 November 23, 2001 - SOLID TRIANGLE SALES CORPORATION and ROBERT SITCHON v. THE SHERIFF OF RTC QC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1662 November 26, 2001 - VICTOR TUZON v. LORETO CLORIBEL-PURUGGANAN

  • G.R. No. 138303 November 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELROSWELL MANZANO

  • G.R. Nos. 100940-41 November 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. AGUSTIN LADAO y LORETO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128285 November 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. ANTONIO PLANA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 130409-10 November 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSUE B. DUMLAO

  • G.R. No. 130907 November 27, 2001 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. HON. CESAR A MANGROBANG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130963 November 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO PASCUA

  • G.R. No. 133381 November 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMULO VILLAVER, ET. AL.

  • G.R. No. 140858 November 27, 2001 - SPOUSES PAPA and LOLITA MANALILI v. SPOUSES ARSENIO and GLICERIA DE LEON

  • G.R. No. 142523 November 27, 2001 - MARIANO L. GUMABON, ET AL. v. AQUILINO T. LARIN

  • G.R. No. 144464 November 27, 2001 - GILDA G. CRUZ and ZENAIDA C. PAITIM v. THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

  • A.M. No. 00-8-05-SC November 28, 2001 - RE: PROBLEM OF DELAYS IN CASES BEFORE THE SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 128516 November 28, 2001 - DULOS REALTY and DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET. AL.

  • A.M. No. P-01-1485 November 29, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. MARIE YVETTE GO, ET AL

  • A.M. No. P-01-1522 November 29, 2001 - JUDGE ANTONIO J. FINEZA v. ROMEO P. ARUELO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1665 November 29, 2001 - ROSAURO M. MIRANDA v. JUDGE CESAR A MANGROBANG

  • G.R. No. 119707 November 29, 2001 - VERONICA PADILLO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 121703 November 29, 2001 - NATIVIDAD T. TANGALIN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126524 November 29, 2001 - BPI INVESTMENT CORP. v. D.G. CARREON COMMERCIAL CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129282 November 29, 2001 - DMPI EMPLOYEES CREDIT COOPERATIVE v. ALEJANDRO M. VELEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 129609 & 135537 November 29, 2001 - RODIL ENTERPRISES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 130326 & 137868 November 29, 2001 - COMPANIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS AND MANILA TOBACCO TRADING v. THE COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. 132066-67 November 29, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BALAS MEDIOS

  • G.R. No. 132133 November 29, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. WILLIAM ALPE y CUATRO

  • G.R. No. 136848 November 29, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO T. RAMIREZ

  • G.R. No. 137815 November 29, 2001 - JUANITA T. SERING v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138489 November 29, 2001 - ELEANOR DELA CRUZ, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 139470 November 29, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SPO2 ANTONIO B. BENOZA

  • G.R. No. 140386 November 29, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENNY ACOSTA

  • G.R. No. 141386 November 29, 2001 - COMMISSION ON AUDIT OF THE PROVINCE OF CEBU v. PROVINCE OF CEBU

  • G.R. Nos. 141702-03 November 29, 2001 - CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS v. NLRC and MARTHA Z. SINGSON

  • G.R. No. 142606 November 29, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NESTOR MUNTA

  • G.R. No. 143127 November 29, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAUL RUBARES Y CAROLINO

  • G.R. No. 143703 November 29, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. JOSE V. MUSA

  •  





     
     

    A.M. No. MTJ-99-1207   November 21, 2001 - NBI v. FRANCISCO D. VILLANUEVA

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [A.M. No. MTJ-99-1207. November 21, 2001.]

    NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, Complainant, v. Judge FRANCISCO D. VILLANUEVA, Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 36, Respondent.

    D E C I S I O N


    PANGANIBAN, J.:


    The conduct and behavior of those connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice must always be beyond reproach. They must be free of impropriety, not only with respect to the performance of their judicial duties, but also in relation to their behavior outside the courtroom.

    The Case


    The administrative charge before us was triggered by a letter 1 from then Director Santiago Y. Toledo of the National Bureau of Investigation NBI), recommending the prosecution of Judge Francisco D. Villanueva (Branch 36, Metropolitan Court of Quezon City) and three others for illegal recruitment under Republic Act (RA) 8042 and white slave trade under the Revised Penal Code in relation to RA 7610. The letter also charged respondent with immorality, alleging that Marian Herrera was his live-in partner.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    At the recommendation of then Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo, the Court in a Resolution dated June 8, 1999, resolved to suspend respondent until further orders.

    After receiving the counter-affidavits of Judge Villanueva and his co-respondents in the NBI investigation, which he adopted as his answer/comment in this administrative case, the Court referred the matter to former Court of Appeals Justice Pedro A. Ramirez — consultant of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) — for investigation, report and recommendation.

    The Facts


    The investigation on the matter began on August 24, 1999 and continued until April 19, 2001. Complainant presented four witnesses: Jobeth Diocales; Janet Ramas; Juvylyn Requilmen; and NBI Supervising Agent Julma Dizon Dapilos, executive officer of the Anti Child Abuse Division (ACADED) of the NBI. The defense, on the other hand, called eight witnesses: Judge Francisco D. Villanueva himself, Marlyn Sumadilla, Mrs. Violeta Jarra Villanueva (wife of respondent), Nitz Tao, Andres C. Torres-Yap, Felilu Amon Ying, Oscar Inocentes and Justice Catalino R. Castaneda Jr.

    In his Report, Justice Ramirez summarized the facts as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "As testified by Jobet Diocales, Janet Ramas and Juvylyn Requilmen[,] it was Marlyn Sumadila and Joy Elardo who recruited and brought them from Tagum to Manila where they arrived by airplane early in the morning of January 19, 1999. It was Marian Herrera and her brother Paolo who met them at the airport and brought them to the house of Marian’s live-in partner Judge Francisco Villanueva at No. 1 Hanna Street, Fil-invest Batasan, Quezon City. Next morning at breakfast about 7:00 o’clock, Jobet, Janet and Juvylyn met respondent Judge Villanueva who was introduced to them by Marian, ‘Ito and asawa ko Judge Francisco Villanueva at ito naman yong mga talent na galing Davao.’ Addressing Marian, respondent Judge Villanueva said, ‘Love, . . . an[g] babata pa [n]ila. Hindi pa sila p’wedeng makapunta sa Japan. Gawin nalang natin silang Dance Instructor.’ On January 21, 1999, after coming from Divisoria to buy clothes to wear as dance instructors, the three girls were brought by respondent Judge first to Ihaw-Ihaw then to the house at Matalino Street, Quezon City that he (respondent Judge Villanueva) and Marian owned. In the evening of that day Jobet saw respondent Judge Villanueva and Marian asleep together. Awakened, Marian upon seeing her, told Jobet to massage respondent Judge which she did assisted by Juvylyn. In the evening of January 23, 1999 Jobet, Janet and Juvylyn were brought by Marian and respondent Judge to Bodega Nightclub where they started working as GROs. There they worked for two nights only because they could not stand the vulgarity of their companions.’Binastos po ako ng customer,’ said Janet. She could not stand the laughter at them, said Juvylyn. According to Jobet customers touched her legs and shoulders and kissed her. Janet said she was touched from the shoulders down to her thighs and was kissed.

    "After the three girls[:] Jobet Diocales, Janet Ramas and Juvylyn Requilmen stopped working as GROs at Bodega Night Club, on [January] 26, 1999, Marian Herrera and respondent Judge fetched them from his (respondent Judge’s) condominium at Murphy, Socorro, Cubao, Quezon City and brought the three girls to KTV Night Club in Timog, Quezon City where they worked as GROs for about a week. After January 29, 1999, when she (Janet) was ‘binastos . . . nang customers,’ all three girls stopped working at KTV Night Club which angered respondent Judge. In the evening of February 11, 1999, Jobet Diocales and Janet Ramas were rescued by the NBI team at respondent Judge’s condominium at 15th Avenue, Murphy, Socorro, Cubao, Quezon City. Juvylyn Requilmen was rescued by the same team at Ihaw-Ihaw Balot-Balot Restaurant owned by Marian Herrera and respondent Judge.

    "Respondent Judge denied having any amorous relation with Marian Herrera. According to him [,] she is but his distant relative on his mother’s side. he was but a business adviser to her [,] which his wife Violeta confirmed. He did not have anything to do with the three girls’ (Jobet, Janet and Juvylyn) stay at the condominium owned by Marian and their employment as GROs. Neither did he sleep there." 2

    Recommendation of the OCA Consultant

    In his Report to the Court dated April 19, 2001, the OCA consultant said that respondent’s denial could not prevail over the positive and clear adverse testimony of the three young women. Their version was more credible, considering that they had no motive to falsify their declarations. He recommended that respondent be held administratively liable for serious misconduct arising from violation of RA 7610.

    The OCA investigator also found a clear indication of an illicit amorous relation between Marian Herrera and respondent, who was still married to Violeta Jarra Villanueva. He pointed out that such extramarital relation constituted immorality — a serious charge under Section 8, Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court, the penalty for which is dismissal from the service.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    The OCA consultant also reported that this Court administratively disciplined respondent three times as follows: (1) in AM No. MTJ-96-1107, he was reprimanded for failure to secure a written permission from the Supreme Court to engage in business; (2) in AM No. MTC-99-1227, he was found guilty of abuse of authority and ordered to pay a fine of P2,000; and (3) in AM No. MTJ-00-1245, he was found guilty of serious misconduct and/or inefficiency in violation of the Canons of Judicial Ethics, fined P10,000, and suspended for one year without pay. The penalties in the last two were each accompanied by a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar infractions would be dealt with more severely.

    The Court’s Ruling


    The Court agrees with the recommendation of Justice Ramirez that respondent is administratively liable for immorality and unbecoming conduct, but not for gross or serious misconduct.

    Respondent’s Administrative Liability

    The evidence shows that respondent is not the owner of any of the establishments involved in this case. Moreover, there is no showing that the three alleged victims were being forced to work as "guest relations officers" (GROs) or that their private parts were fondled by customers. As testified to by the three young women, they had voluntarily gone with respondent to the night clubs to seek jobs. They needed no prior encouragement in spending all the money handed to them by Marian Herrera or in splurging on clothes and make-up to equip themselves for night club jobs.

    Furthermore, the three "victims" were free to enter and leave the condominium where they resided. 3 They went to the disco only whenever they wanted to. 4 It is clear from their testimonies that they were not forced to do anything against their will. They were free to change their jobs, as they did twice later. They were allowed to leave their place of residence or work 5 anytime, as they in fact also did whenever they went to the discos and when they were "rescued." The evidence clearly shows that they were merely fetched — two from the condominium where they were staying while looking for more acceptable jobs, and the third from the Ihaw-Ihaw Balot-Balot Restaurant where she was already working as a cashier. The three alleged "victims" were not in need of any rescuing, for they were not in detention at the time they were fetched.

    The above notwithstanding, respondent cannot be excused for his deeds. "The Canons of Judicial Ethics requires a judge to keep himself free from any appearance of impropriety. His personal behavior, not only while in the performance of official duties but also outside the court, must be beyond reproach, for he is — as he is so aptly perceived to be — the visible personification of law and of justice. A judicial office circumscribes a personal conduct and imposes a number of inhibitions, whose faithful observance is the price one has to pay for holding an exalted position. 6

    Though he denies encouraging the three young women to apply for jobs as GROs, his actions loudly speak otherwise. It is undisputed that he accompanied them to the Bodega Night Club one night in January 1999. 7 He introduced 8 them to the operator, Andres C. Torres-Yap, and informed the latter that the women were looking for jobs. Respondent also accompanied them when they applied at the KTV night club, where they eventually worked as GROs from January 26, 1999 to January 29, 1999. 9

    By his acts, respondent clearly facilitated the employment of the three young women as GROs. Our present society considers their work as morally wrong. By facilitating the employment of the three in a night club as such, he was placing the then impressionable minors directly on a path of moral decay. He was exposing them to a seedy world where the practice of offering one’s flesh in exchange for money was thrust right in front of their faces.

    Furthermore, by his careless acts, respondent opened himself to the charges of white slave trade and violation of RA 7610. Such acts are unacceptable, because "no position exacts a greater demand on moral righteousness and uprightness than a seat in the judiciary. High ethical principles and a sense of propriety should be maintained, without which the faith of the people in the judiciary so indispensable in an orderly society cannot be preserved." 10 In sum, his actions show conduct unbecoming his office.

    The Court does not agree with the OCA consultant that the said acts of respondent constitute serious misconduct in office. "Serious misconduct is such misconduct which affects a public officer’s performance of his duties as such officer and not only that which affects his character as a private individual. For serious misconduct to warrant dismissal from the service, there must be reliable evidence showing that the judicial acts complained of were corrupt or inspired by an intention to violate the law. It must (1) be serious, important, weighty, momentary, and not trifling; (2) imply wrongful intention and not mere error of judgment; and (3) have a direct relation to and be connected with the performance of his official duties." 11

    In this case, the acts complained of are not connected with the performance of respondent’s official duties; thus, they cannot be considered serious or gross misconduct. However, such acts are violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct, specifically Canon 2 which states that" [a] judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities." chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    In the matter of immorality, we agree with the findings of the OCA consultant. First, the evidence clearly shows that respondent and Marian Herrera were lovers because respondent was found sleeping inside the same bedroom occupied by Herrera at No. 1 Hanna Street, Fil-Invest, Batasan, Quezon City. Second, they were cohabiting in the same house in the aforementioned address. Finally, respondent never denied that he was the husband of Herrera when he was introduced to complainant’s witnesses. The testimonies on this point were spontaneous, clear and consistent. Pertinent portions of the testimony of Jobeth Diocales are reproduced hereunder:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Q When you reached Manila on January 19, 1999 at 1:30 a.m., was there anybody who pick you up from the airport?

    A Tita Marian Herrera and her brother Paolo, ma’am.

    Q And where did you proceed from the airport?

    A In the house of Judge Francisco Villanueva and Tita Marian, ma’am.

    COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Q Who’s this Tita Marian you’re talking about?

    A Live-in partner of Judge, sir.

    Q Do they live in the same house?

    A Yes, ma’am.

    Q Can you tell us exactly where this house is?

    A No. 1 Hanna Street, Fil-invest, Batasan, Quezon City, ma’am.

    Q You said that it was Ate Marian and her brother Paolo who picked you up from the airport and you proceeded to 1 Hannah Street. You said also that it was the house of Judge Villanueva and Marian Herrera?

    A Yes, ma’am.

    Q When you arrived in 1 Hanna Street, was the Judge there?

    A Yes, he’s sleeping and in the morning at 7:00 o’clock Ate Marian introduced Judge Villanueva to us as her husband, ma’am.

    Q And what if any did Judge Villanueva tell upon seeing you?

    A ‘Good Morning’, ma’am.

    Q Aside from that, any other thing?

    A Invited us for breakfast, ma’am.

    Q What else if any?

    A He said we are of minor age and we could not go to Japan, ma’am.

    Q Why not according to him?

    A He said ‘Love’ referring to Ate Marian.’Ang babata pa nila. Hindi pa sila p’wedeng makapunta ng Japan. Gawin na lang natin silang Dance Instructor.’ 12

    x       x       x


    Q So, let’s make this clear, from the time you arrived in Manila on January 19 up to the time according to you, you were rescued when actually what you meant you were fetched by the NBI, you had only one conversation with Judge Villanueva?

    A No, sir.

    Q How many times did you talk to him?

    A Every time that we met, sir.

    Q The first time you talk with Judge Villanueva, what did you talk about?

    A He asked me how’s my work, how’s being G.R.O., our customers okay?

    Q Now, when you arrived in Manila, you were met according to you by Marian Herrera and you were brought to a place which you identified before the investigator as the house of Judge Villanueva, how did you know that was the house of Judge Villanueva?

    A Because they were together in the house and they were together sleeping, sir.

    Q Did you see them sleeping together?

    A Yes, sir.

    Q Pumasok ka ba sa k’warto?

    A Once. Tita Marian even asked me to get inside the room, so that I can massage Judge Francisco Villanueva who wanted to know what was my pressure, sir.

    Q This was how many days after your arrival in Manila?

    A Two (2) days, January 21, 1999 at 9:30 in the evening, sir.

    Q And did you not object and you agreed to massage Judge Villanueva, was that the kind of work that you were doing as a student of the Natural Therapeutic?

    A Yes, sir." 13

    x       x       x


    "Q And when you met Marian Herrera, how did she talk to you in English, tagalog or what?

    A Tagalog, sir.

    Q When according to you Marian Herrera said ‘My husband’, did she say that in English or in Tagalog?

    A In Tagalog, sir.

    Q What in exact words?

    A ‘Ito ang asawa ko Judge Francisco Villanueva at ito naman yong mga talents na galing Davao’, sir.

    Q She was saying that in?

    A In Tagalog, sir.

    Q So Marilyn Herrera never used the word ‘husband’ with respect to Judge Villanueva?

    A Yes, sir.

    Q What she said was ‘Ito ang asawa ko’?

    A Yes, sir." 14

    Janet L. Ramas, on the other hand, testified thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "ATTY PASCUAL:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Q Miss Ramas, do you know Judge Francisco Villanueva?

    A Yes, ma’m.

    Q Why do you know him?

    A Ate Marian introduced Judge Francisco Villanueva during breakfast time in the house of Judge Francisco Villanueva, ma’m.

    COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Q By whom was he introduced?

    A By Ate Marian Herrera, your Honor.

    x       x       x


    Q Can you give us exactly the address of that house of Judge Francisco Villanueva?

    A Yes ma’m No. 1, Hana Street, Batasan Hills." 15

    x       x       x


    "Q And who is Ate Marian Herrera?

    A Live-in partner of Judge Francisco Villanueva, ma’m." 16

    Juvylyn Requilmen testified on the same matter in this wise:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Q Where is the house of Marian Herrera?

    A No. 1 Hannah Street, Batasan Hills, Filinvest, sir.

    x       x       x


    Q Later in the day, did you ever meet anyone inside the house of Marian Herrera?

    A Yes, sir.

    Q Who was that?

    A Judge Francisco Villanueva, sir.

    Q If you were ask to point him out, could you point him to us?

    A (Witness pointing to a person who identified himself as Judge Francisco Villanueva)

    Q How did you meet Judge Francisco Villanueva?

    A He was introduced to us by Marian Herrera as her husband, sir.

    Q After you were introduced, did Judge Villanueva say anything if any?

    A When we have breakfast and he said ‘Ay, Love ang babata pa nila, hindi pa sila p’wedeng pumunta ng Japan, gawin na lang natin silang D.I.’, sir.

    Q When Judge Villanueva said ‘Ay, Love ang babata pa nila, and then continued with this statement, to whom was he talking to?

    A Marian Herrera, sir." 17

    x       x       x


    ATTY. DE ALBAN:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Q Did you meet Judge Villanueva early morning of June 19, 1999?

    A Yes, sir.

    Q And you said that he was introduced to you as the husband of Marian Herrera?

    A Yes, sir.

    Q What did Judge Villanueva say, if any?

    A he just laughed, sir." 18

    In contrast, respondent’s denials and explanations were hollow and unworthy of belief. If indeed he was merely the business consultant of Marian Herrera, he would not be so free and so comfortable sleeping in the same bedroom as she or waking up and then having breakfast with her in her house. This is taking business consultancy much too far.

    In an administrative proceeding, as contradistinguished from a criminal case, only substantial evidence — that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion — is required. 19 Here, the existence of extramarital relations between respondent and Marian Herrera is substantially supported by the evidence on record.

    Appropriate Penalty

    Rule 140 of the Rules of Court provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Sec. 8. Serious charges. — Serious charges include:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    x       x       x


    "3. Gross misconduct constituting violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct;

    x       x       x


    "8. Immorality;

    x       x       x


    "Sec. 11. Sanctions. — A. If the respondent is guilty of a serious charge, any of the following sanctions may be imposed:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "1. Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court may determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or controlled corporation. Provided, however, that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave credits;

    "2. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than three (3) but not exceeding six (6) months; or

    "3. A fine of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Considering that respondent has already retired, he can no longer be dismissed or suspended. Hence, the appropriate penalty is a fine.

    WHEREFORE, Judge Francisco D. Villanueva is found GUILTY of immorality and conduct unbecoming a judge. He is hereby FINED in the amount of P40,000.

    SO ORDERED

    Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Quisumbing, Pardo, Buena, Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, Jr., Sandoval-Gutierrez and Carpio, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. Rollo, pp. 6-9.

    2. Report, pp. 22-25; rollo, pp. 373-376.

    3. TSN, August 25, 1999, p. 50.

    4. Ibid.

    5. TSN, August 25, 1999, Afternoon Session, p. 28.

    6. Marcelino v. Singson Jr., 243 SCRA 685, 688-689, April 24, 1995, per Vitug, J.

    7. TSN, January 13, 2000, pp. 23-24; TSN, June 15, 2000, pp. 51-52.

    8. TSN, June 15, 2000, pp. 51-52; TSN, August 25, 1999, Morning Session, p. 65.

    9. TSN, August 25,1999, p. 50.

    10. In Re: Derogatory News Item Charging Court of Appeals Justice Demetrio Demetria with Interference on Behalf of a Suspected Drug Queen, AM No. 00-7-09-CA, March 27, 2001, per curiam.

    11. Mamba v. Garcia, AM No. MTJ-96-1110, June 25, 2001, per curiam, citing Manuel v. Calimag Jr., 307 SCRA 657, May 28, 1999.

    12 TSN, August 25, 1999, pp. 10-12.

    13. TSN, August 25, 1999, pp. 61-62.

    14. TSN, August 25, 1999, p. 8.

    15. TSN,

    16. TSN, August 25, 1999, p. 45.

    17. TSN, October 26, 1999, pp. 54-55.

    18. TSN, October 26, 1999, pp. 73-74.

    19. Ibid.

    A.M. No. MTJ-99-1207   November 21, 2001 - NBI v. FRANCISCO D. VILLANUEVA


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED