ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[A.M. No. RTJ-00-1537.March 26, 2001]

TRANQUILINO vs. JUDGE CALIMAG

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 26 2001.

A.M No. RTJ-00-1537(Evelyn Tranquilino vs. Judge Dernetrio D. Calimag, Jr., Presiding Judge, RTC-Br. 35, Santiago City.)

Complainant Evelyn Tranquilino charges respondent Demetrio D. Calimag, Jr., RTC-Br. 35, Santiago City, of Sexual Harassment, Gross Misbehavior, Conduct Unbecoming of a Judge and Gross Immorality, in a Complaint dated 21 July 1999 and filed with this Court on 30 August 1999.

Specifically, complainant alleges that in July 1998 she accompanied a barangay mate at the latter's request to the sala of respondent judge; that as soon as her barangay mate left the chambers of respondent the latter immediately locked the door, stood behind the chair from where she was seated, gripped her forearms and whispered: "You know, I like you."

Not appreciating respondent's actuations, complainant turned to leave but was prevailed upon respondent to accept a ride home as he was then also about to leave the court. Complainant accepted the invitation confident that respondent would not attempt to do anything more since his driver and bodyguard would also be in the car.

Once inside the car, however, respondent repeatedly touched complainant's chest and kissed her on the lips. Respondent only stopped when they reached Northeastern College where he was supposed to alight. Complainant took advantage of the opportunity to rush home but was followed by respondent who barged inside her house without invitation and left only when she pushed him outside.

Respondent repeatedly went to her house in the months of August 1998 and July 1999, and during those visits respondent would either stand or sit very close to her and touch her hands, thighs and knees against her will. Also, respondent repeatedly called her in the months of September, October and November 1998 but she refused to answer his calls. Sometime thereafter, she confronted respondent in his chambers upon hearing that he was spreading rumors that she was his mistress but respondent crudely suggested that they instead give truth to the rumor. Complainant, in utter dismay, moved to leave but respondent angrily hit his desk and uttered: "Putang ina! Ang dami namang babae diyan na puedeng bayaran kahit isang libo! Ikaw pa na tatlo na ang anak aug magpapakipot!"

When complainant subsequently went to court to follow up her complaint for annulment of marriage which she had given to respondent himself, the latter repeated his sexual advances by again touching her chest and kissing her on the nape, cheeks and lips. As regards her complaint for annulment, respondent had previously assured her that he would have it raffled to his sala and that he would take care of it if complainant would only give herself to him.

Respondent Judge in his Comment dated 16 November 1999 denies the charges. Instead he alleges that he first met complainant in a caravan rally in Isabela in March 1998. On that occasion complainant asked his help in annulling her marriage so that she could marry an American. He advised her to engage the services of a lawyer to assist her in preparing her petition. In the following months of April, May and June 1998 complainant and Barangay Kagawad Lydia Makiling regularly visited him in court to seek his advice regarding the possibility of filing complainants petition for annulment of marriage in his sala but he bluntly told her that her petition would not prosper because she was the one suffering from psychological incapacity for having abandoned her husband and left their conjugal dwelling in Jones, Isabela. Sometime in July 1998 she and Lydia Makiling indeed visited him in his sala but they left together at 4:30 in the afternoon at the same time that his other visitors did. If it were really true that he made sexual advances against complainant in his chambers why then did the latter still accept his offer of a ride home? Also, if it were really true that he again made sexual advances inside his car, why then did complainant not react and even allowed him inside her home? A woman of good repute will not allow more than a year to lapse from the time the alleged sexual advances were made before filing a complaint to vindicate her honor. If indeed it is true that complainant was afraid of him because of his previous behavior, why then did complainant allow him, allegedly, inside her home during the months of August 1998 and July 1999?

Respondent further argues that, contrary to complainants claim that he repeatedly called on her in her house, the truth is that it was really complainant who repeatedly called him pleading to have her case filed in his court but that he always told her that it would not prosper. Being a married man and a member of the Judiciary, respondent claims that he is not stupid enough to spread rumors that she was his mistress. Moreover, he countered, if it is true that he made sexual overtures to her, why then would she always go to his chambers to follow up her complaint for annulment of marriage when no case had yet been filed and he was not even her lawyer as to do the filing for her? Respondent concluded that complainant was merely paid by disgruntled litigants to file a complaint against him.

On 2 February 2000 we referred this case to Mme. Justice Mercedes Gozo-Dadole of the Court of Appeals for investigation, report and recommendation. Subsequently, hearings were conducted on 16 May, 9 June and 30 June 2000. In her Report dated 19 December 2000 the Investigating Justice stated -

Evidence on hand shows that on several occasions, respondent has committed those (acts) complained (of), to wit:

(1) Sometime last July 1998 at about 4:30 p.m. while complainant was inside the chamber of respondent judge at the Hall of Justice and while her companion Lydia Makiling has (sic) left the respondents chamber, respondent suddenly stood up, went to the door, locked it and when the complainant was about to stand up to leave the respondents chamber, the latter placed his hands on both her shoulders by holding her back, stooped his face so close to her face, that he was reeling with alcohol breath (sic) and whispered: "I like you and I love you, touching simultaneously her breast several times;

(2) That after leaving the chamber of the respondent, the latter also followed her, told her to ride with him in his car in the presence of his bodyguard Gary Domingo and his driver at the same time pushing her at the backseat of his car directly behind his driver while he seated himself at the right side. While inside the car, placed his left hand around her neck and pulled her towards him then touched her breast, placed his right hand inside her buttoned blouse, and mashed her breast despite parrying his advances who continued to do these acts and then, later on, he unzipped her zipped pants in order to finger her private parts but was unsuccessful because they already reached the Northeastern College where respondent disembarked.

(3) That when she made a follow-up of her annulment case with the respondent who assured her that the annulment case will (sic) be raffled to his sala, respondent, while she was inside his chamber, rained kisses on her hands, cheek and lips then mashed her breast and had it not been for somebody who knocked on (sic) the door his carnal/sexual desires could not have been prevented x x x x although the incident as stated in paragraph 2 was accordingly done in the presence of respondent's driver and bodyguard, yet, they were not presented to collaborate the denial of the respondent judge x x x x

As the records now stand, it is the undersigneds assessment that respondent has failed to live up to the high standard required of members of the bench x x x x [h]e grossly violated his duty to uphold the dignity of the judiciary and to avoid impropriety, not only in the performance of his judicial duties but also to (sic) his behavior outside his sala and as a private individual x x x x

On the basis of the foregoing evaluation on the evidence presented by both the complainant and the respondent, undersigned Investigating Justice recommends, for gross misbehavior, gross immorality and acts unbecoming of a judge committed by herein respondent judge and with the presence of the mitigating circumstance due to (sic) the actuation, conduct and consent on the part of the complainant, a fine of Twenty Thousand (P20,000.00) Pesos would be sufficient penalty x x x x

The issue boils down to one of credibility and the propriety of the penalty recommended. Due to the private nature of the acts charged against respondent judge, it is not at all surprising that this case will have to be decided principally on the basis of the testimonies of complainant and respondent. Just as in criminal cases where the trial court's factual conclusions and assessment of the credibility of witnesses carry great weight having had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses, and can therefore discern if they are telling the truth or not, 1 Peopte v. Solares, G.R. No. 82363, 5 May 1989, 173 SCRA 203. so too do we accord the same degree of respect to the findings of the Investigating Justice in this case.

The Court has always laid down exacting standards of morality and decency from those who serve in the Judiciary. 2 Junio v. Rivera, Jr., A.M. No. MTJ-91-565, 30 August 1993, 225 SCRA 688. In fact we said that no position is more demanding as regards moral righteousness and uprightness of any individual than a seat in the Judiciary 3 Yu-Asensi v. Villanueva, A.M. No. MTJ-00-1245, 19 January 2000, 322 SCRA 255; Legaspi vs. Garrete, Adm. Matter No. MTJ-92-713, 27 March 1995, 242 SCRA 679. considering that a judge, being the visible representation of the law and of justice, 4 Gil v. Son, AM. No. MTJ-93-741, 21 February 1995, 241 SCRA 467. is naturally expected to be the epitome of integrity and should be beyond reproach.

Respondent Judge, a married man, failed to live up to this standard when he made sexual advances, no less in his chambers, against complainant, herself married though separated. Although, as observed by the Investigating Justice, indications exist that complainant somehow tolerated those advances, perhaps in the hope of obtaining a favor from respondent judge with respect to her complaint for annulment of marriage, this fact however does not, and cannot, mitigate respondents liability. Independently and regardless of complainant's behavior, respondent Judge was expected to maintain, if not his own personal code, the code of honor befitting a member of the Judiciary.

Thus, we find no reason not to adopt the factual findings and conclusion of Mme. Justice Mercedes Gozo-Dadole as regards the administrative liability of respondent. However, as regards the penalty imposed, we find the recommendation of P20,000,00 too lenient considering that under Resolution No. 89-106 dated 20 July 1989 of the Civil Service Commission the penalty for disgraceful and immoral conduct is suspension for six (6) months and one (1) day for the first offense, and dismissal from the service for the second.

Respondent Judge had already been previously admonished to "conduct himself accordingly in all his activities at all times as to avoid any impropriety or even the appearance of impropriety" in order to promote and protect the image of the Judiciary to which he is privileged to belong. 5 Manuel v. Calimag, Jr., AM. No. RTJ-99-1441, 28 May 1999, 307 SCRA 657. Considering the foregoing, we find the penalty of suspension for six (6) months without pay plus a fine of P20,000.00 adequate and reasonable.

WHEREFORE, for Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct, and Conduct Unbecoming of a Judge, respondent JUDGE DEMETRIO D, CALIMAG, JR., of RTC-Br. 35, Santiago City, is SUSPENDED for six (6) months without pay to commence immediately upon service to him of this Resolution plus a fine of P20,000.00 which he is required to pay within thirty (30) days from service hereof. Respondent Judge is WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar misconduct will be dealt with more severely.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS
Clerk of Court


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com