A.M. No. RTJ-00-1448 (Formerly A.M. No. RTJ-99-1448) April 6, 2000
Saphia M. Magarang, complainant, vs. Judge Galdino B. Jardin, Sr., respondent.

FACTS

The administrative complaint stemmed from a quo warranto case filed by Alexander Mama-O challenging the appointment of complainant’s husband, Nuruddin Magarang, as DOTC Director. Respondent Judge Galdino B. Jardin, Sr., presiding over RTC Branch 05, Butuan City, issued a Temporary Restraining Order and later a writ of preliminary injunction against Magarang. Complainant alleged that during a visit to the judge’s house on August 28, 1998, respondent expressed willingness to help but stated he had to return P200,000 he received from Mama-O, implying she should match it. She later gave him P80,000 in his office on October 1, 1998, with a promise for more, in exchange for a favorable resolution on her husband’s motion for reconsideration. The judge denied the motion. A subsequent altercation on November 3, 1998, involved the complainant attempting to recover the money, leading to a physical confrontation where the judge bit her finger.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Galdino B. Jardin, Sr. is administratively liable for the acts complained of, particularly for corruption and conduct unbecoming a judge.

RULING

Yes, respondent judge is guilty of gross misconduct and gross ignorance of the law, warranting dismissal. The Court found the complainant’s detailed narration of the bribery incidents credible and corroborated by the sequence of events, including the immediate denial of the motion after her payment. The judge’s defense of mere denial and presentation of character awards were insufficient to overcome the substantial evidence. His act of demanding and receiving money in relation to a pending case constitutes direct bribery under the Revised Penal Code and a severe violation of judicial integrity and the Code of Judicial Conduct. Furthermore, the Court of Appeals’ annulment of his questioned orders demonstrated his gross ignorance of basic jurisdictional principles in a quo warranto proceeding. The physical altercation, regardless of provocation, exhibited conduct grossly unbecoming of a judicial officer. These acts collectively constitute gross misconduct, gross ignorance of the law, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, for which the supreme penalty of dismissal is imposed.