G.R. No. RTJ-98-1420. October 8, 1998.
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR (OCA), complainant, vs. FLORENCIO S. BARRON, Presiding Judge, Branch 35, Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City, respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Judge Florencio S. Barron was the Acting Presiding Judge of Branch 41, RTC, Dumaguete City, where a civil case entitled “Mainit Marine Resources Corporation, Inc. (MMRC) vs. Alex J. Amor, Jr., and the Register of Deeds of Negros Oriental” was pending. On June 4, 1996, a retired court employee, Casildo Gabo, went to MMRC and told its president, David Crear, that Judge Barron wanted to see him at Salawaki Beach. Crear, suspecting impropriety, informed the NBI. At the meeting, Judge Barron told Crear he needed help as his wife and daughter were traveling to the U.S., stated he could write a decision favorable to Crear’s case, and described their relationship as “symbiotic.” He requested $4,000. An entrapment was set for June 8, 1996. The NBI prepared marked money. During the entrapment, Crear handed a bag containing the marked money to Judge Barron inside his car. Upon the pre-arranged signal, NBI agents arrested Judge Barron in flagrante delicto while he was putting the money under the driver’s seat. Ultra violet examination confirmed fluorescent powder on his hands. An information for Direct Bribery was filed with the Sandiganbayan. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) initiated this administrative case.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Florencio S. Barron should be held administratively liable for conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service, warranting dismissal from the judiciary.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court DISMISSED respondent Judge Florencio S. Barron from the service with FORFEITURE of all retirement benefits and privileges. He is likewise DISQUALIFIED from re-employment in any government branch or instrumentality. The Court found the defense of frame-up untenable. The detailed account of the entrapment operation, the positive testimonies and evidence, and the fact that respondent judge was caught in possession of the marked money established his guilt. His actions constituted a blatant disregard for the Code of Judicial Conduct, a betrayal of public trust, and gross misconduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. The Court emphasized that a judge’s conduct must be free from impropriety and intended to preserve public confidence in the judiciary. Respondent judge tarnished the judiciary’s integrity and does not deserve to remain in service.