Republic
of the Philippines
SUPREME
COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
.
ROSARIO D.
ADRIANO,
Complainant,
A.M.
No.
MTJ-99-1233
(Formerly OCA
IPI No.
97-454-MTJ)
December
8, 2003
-versus-
JUDGE FRANCISCO
D.
VILLANUEVA,
MeTC, BRANCH 36,
QUEZON CITY,
Respondent.
R E S O L U T I O
N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
J.:
This resolves the
Administrative Case against Judge Francisco D. Villanueva of the
Metropolitan
Trial Court of Quezon City for immorality. It stemmed from a sworn
letter-complaint[1]
filed by Rosario D. Adriano charging respondent with gross ignorance of
the law, knowingly rendering an unjust judgment, grave abuse of
discretion
and conduct unbecoming a trial judge which was docketed as A.M. No.
MTJ-99-1232
(formerly OCA IPI No. 97-454-MTJ) and cohabitation with a woman not his
wife which remained as part of OCA IPI No. 97-454-MTJ. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The letter-complaint
claims that respondent, in acquitting accused Fe Floro Valino[2]
of charges of misrepresenting and recording her name in the death
certificate
as the wife of the deceased husband of herein complainant, countenanced
the criminal acts subject of the case; that respondent's leniency
towards
the accused who was the mistress of her deceased husband, may have been
brought about by his own practice of cohabiting with a woman who is not
his legal wife, which constitutes conduct unbecoming a judge.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Complainant did not
identify the name of respondent's alleged mistress in her
letter-complaint
but specified that respondent and his mistress are cohabiting at No. 1
Hanna Street, Fil-Invest, Batasan, Quezon City.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On, January 13, 1998,
the Court Administrator required respondent to submit his Answer to the
letter-complaint within ten days from notice.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On February 27, 1998,
respondent filed his Answer contending that "the complaint that he does
not live with his legal wife, is unfounded and without basis." He
attached
the Affidavit of Merit executed by his wife Violeta Jara Villanueva,
stating
that "her husband has no mistress and is not living with any mistress
elsewhere."[3]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As a reply to respondent's
Answer, complainant sent a letter dated March 18, 1998 wherein she
invited
the Court's attention to the fact that respondent's given address,
which
is No. 1 Hanna St., Filinvest, Batasan, Quezon City, is different from
his wife's address stated in her affidavit, which is No. 12 Sangumay
St.,
Mindanao Ave. Subd., Quezon City, thus attesting to the fact that
respondent
is living separately from his legal wife.[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In a Memorandum dated
September 9, 1999, the then Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo
recommended
that:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x
x
x
x x
x
x x xchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3. the matter of
whether
respondent Judge is cohabiting with another woman not his wife subject
matter of complaint Rosario D. Adriano's sworn complaint dated October
18, 1997, be re-docketed as an administrative matter separate from this
case, be investigated and, if found true, he should be dealt with
accordingly.[5]
Consequently, on
October
18, 1999, the Court directed the Office of the Court Administrator to
docket
the complaint charging respondent with cohabiting with a woman not his
wife as a separate administrative matter and to raffle the case anew.
Accordingly,
the complaint for immorality was docketed as A.M. No. MTJ-99-1233, the
present case; but it is only after February 16, 2000, that herein case
was re-raffled.[6]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The OCA, in its Memorandum,
dated August 29, 2002, reported as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Lastly,
with
regard to the charge of conduct unbecoming of a trial judge, this
Office
admits that complainant's evidence is purely circumstantial when she
offered
proof that respondent and his paramour are both residing at: "No. 1
Hanna
St., Filinvest, Batasan, Quezon City," while respondent's legal wife
resides
at: "No. 12 Sangumay St., Mindanao Avenue Subd., Quezon City" as shown
in the affidavit. However, this is not the first time that respondent
was
accused of the same offense. In the case of NBI vs. Judge Villanueva
[A.M.
No. MTJ-99-1207, 21 November 2001], the Honorable Court pronounced
respondent
guilty of immorality for having extra-marital relations with a certain
Marian Herrera whom he was illicitly living with at the address known
as:
"No. 1 Hanna St., Fil-Invest, Batasan, Quezon City." The Honorable
Court
imposed upon respondent the penalty of fine in the sum of P40,000.00
pesos
since "respondent has already retired, he can no longer be dismissed or
suspended." Although under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, immorality
is
considered a serious charge with an imposable penalty of either
dismissal
or suspension from the service, respondent's retirement renders the
penalty
of either dismissal or suspension moot and academic. Due to the
foregoing
decision, this Office has no recourse but to dismiss complainant's
charge
of conduct unbecoming of a trial judge.[7]
(Emphasis
supplied)
and recommended the
dismissal
of herein administrative matter for having been moot and academic in
view
of the decision rendered in A.M. No. MTJ-99-1207, entitled, NBI vs.
Judge
Villanueva.[8]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Likewise found in the
records of the above-entitled case is a Resolution dated December 9,
2002,
issued by the Court in Adm. Matter No. 11015-RET., to wit:
Considering
the letter dated 3 July 2002 of Hon. Francisco D. Villanueva, former
Judge,
MTC, Quezon City, requesting the release of his compulsory retirement
benefits
and the retention of a considerable amount therefrom pending resolution
of the administrative case filed against him, and it appearing that
Judge
Villanueva retired from the judiciary service effective 4 October 2001;
that per Certification dated 4 October 2002 issued by the Docket and
Clearance
Division, Legal Office, OCA, there are two (2) pending administrative
complaints
filed against him, to wit: A.M. No. MTJ-99-1232 (Formerly OCA IPI No.
97-454-MTJ)
and A.M. No. MTJ-99-1233 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 97-454-MTJ), both
pending
in the Third Division of this Court; and that in a 2nd Indorsement
dated
25 October 2002, the Legal Office, OCA, disclosed that the charges
against
Judge Villanueva are quite serious, the Court Resolves, upon
recommendation
of Deputy Court Administrator Christopher O. Lock in a Memorandum dated
22 November 2002, to: (a) DENY the request of Judge Francisco D.
Villanueva
and WITHHOLD his compulsory retirement benefits, except his accrued
leave
credits, pending the final resolution of AM Nos. MTJ-99-1232 and
MTJ-99-1233;
and (b) DIRECT the IMMEDIATE RELEASE of Judge Villanueva's retirement
benefits
in the event that he is exonerated from the charges in the said
administrative
complaints.[9]
(Emphasis
supplied)chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On February 19, 2003,
the
Third Division of the Court rendered judgment on A.M. MTJ-99-1232,
finding
herein respondent guilty of simple misconduct, undue delay in deciding
a case and gross ignorance of the law, and imposing upon him a fine of
P40,000.00 to be deducted from his retirement benefits which have been
withheld in view of the second administrative case filed against him
wherein
he was found guilty and fined.[10]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As to the present complaint
charging respondent with immorality or conduct unbecoming a trial
judge,
herein complainant did not identify the name of respondent's alleged
mistress
but only gave information that the address wherein the two are living
together
is No. 1 Hanna Street, Fil-Invest, Batasan, Quezon City which turns out
to be the same address where respondent and his lover named as Marian
Herrera
have been found to be cohabiting, as held in the NBI case.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Indeed, it may be reasonable
to conclude that the mistress alluded to by complainant in this case
must
be the same mistress subject of the NBI case because of the similarity
of the given addresses; and if this were so, the present charges of
immorality
against respondent had already been fully threshed out in that NBI case
where the same respondent was found guilty thereof and meted out a fine
of Forty Thousand Pesos.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It is noted that the
present complaint was filed in 1997 while the NBI case was filed only
in
1999. The possibility that complainant may refer to another woman, is
not
outside the realm of impossibility. Absent any identification of the
alleged
mistress in this case, the Court would only be indulging into
speculations
and surmises if it were to resolve herein administrative complaint only
on the basis of the given addresses. The failure of herein complainant
to specifically name the alleged mistress of respondent is fatal to her
complaint against respondent.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the above-entitled
administrative case is DISMISSED for lack of merit.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Let copy of herein Resolution
be referred to A.M. No. 11015-RET for information and guidance.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Puno, Quisumbing, Callejo,
Sr. and Tinga, JJ., concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Received by the Office of Court Administrator on November 25, 1997.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
In Criminal Case No. 31285, entitled "People of the Philippines vs. Fe
Floro Valino alias Fe Floro Adriano."
[3]
Rollo of A.M. No. MTJ-99-1232, pp. 117–119.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Id., pp. 147–149.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Rollo of AM-MTJ-99-1232, p. 154.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Id., p. 155.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Rollo of A.M. MTJ-99-1232, p. 172–173.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Id., p. 175.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Rollo of A.M. MTJ-99-1233, p. 17.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Id.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |