G.R. No. MTJ-92-716 October 25, 1995
Ma. Blyth B. Abadilla, complainant, vs. Judge Jose C. Tabiliran, Jr., Presiding Judge, 8th MCTC, Manukan and Jose Dalman, Zamboanga del Norte, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Ma. Blyth B. Abadilla, Clerk of Court at respondent’s sala, charged Judge Jose C. Tabiliran, Jr. with gross immorality, deceitful conduct, and corruption. Regarding immorality, it was alleged that respondent publicly cohabited with Priscilla Baybayan during his subsisting marriage to Teresita Banzuela and subsequently contracted a bigamous marriage with Baybayan in 1986 by falsely representing himself as single. This was compounded by his prior administrative case for abandonment filed by his lawful wife. On deceit, respondent was accused of falsely registering his three illegitimate children with Baybayan as legitimate by executing affidavits claiming delayed registration was due to oversight.
The corruption charges involved multiple acts. First, respondent utilized office hours for private law practice by preparing and notarizing documents for excessive fees beyond the authorized rates for an Ex-Officio Notary Public, as evidenced by several receipts. Second, he was accused of accepting bribes, supported by an affidavit stating he received a bag of fish and squid from a litigant. Third, he allegedly prepared an Affidavit of Desistance in a rape case pending in his court and collected P500.00 from the accused.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Jose C. Tabiliran, Jr. is administratively liable for gross immorality, deceitful conduct, and corruption.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent guilty of all charges and ordered his dismissal. On gross immorality, his cohabitation with another woman during a subsisting marriage and his contraction of a bigamous union constituted conduct grossly prejudicial to the judiciary’s integrity, violating the exacting standards of morality required of judges. His deceitful act of falsely legitimizing his children demonstrated a lack of probity.
On corruption, the Court affirmed the findings. Respondent admitted preparing and notarizing documents for fees. While acting as an Ex-Officio Notary Public was permissible due to the absence of a notary in his locality, Section 252 of the Notarial Law mandates that fees collected by an officer acting ex-officio must be accounted for as government funds. His failure to properly account for and remit these fees raised the presumption he converted them for personal use. Regarding the Affidavit of Desistance, his bare denial could not overcome the affirmative evidence presented. His actions constituted corrupt practices and private practice of law, violating Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct requiring a judge to avoid impropriety and its appearance. Consequently, the Court dismissed him from service with forfeiture of benefits and disqualification from re-employment.