G.R. No. MTJ-95-1059. August 7, 1998.
Ruferto Gutierrez and Maritess Passion, complainants, vs. Judge Estanislao S. Belan, Municipal Trial Court, Biñan, Laguna, respondent.

FACTS

Complainants Ruferto Gutierrez and Maritess Passion, representing themselves as concerned citizens of Biñan, Laguna, charged respondent Judge Estanislao S. Belan of the Municipal Trial Court of Biñan, Laguna, with conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The charges included: (1) that in his application to the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), respondent Judge stated he had not been charged with any crime, thereby concealing the pendency of Criminal Case No. 6772 for “Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Serious Physical Injuries” filed against him on July 2, 1979; (2) that upon his assumption of office on September 19, 1994, he solicited the help of other judges to obtain an “ante-dated” dismissal of said criminal case; and (3) that he asked for and kept a percentage of the face value of bail bonds he approved. The case was referred for investigation to Executive Judge Rodrigo V. Cosico, who recommended dismissal due to lack of substantiation, noting the complainants appeared fictitious and the other charges were not proven by the testimony of court personnel and practicing lawyers. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) evaluated the case and disagreed with the investigating judge’s recommendation, finding respondent Judge guilty of dishonesty for concealing the pending criminal case in his JBC application.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Estanislao S. Belan is administratively liable for dishonesty for concealing in his application to the Judicial and Bar Council the pendency of a criminal case against him.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court found respondent Judge guilty of dishonesty. The Court held that a prospective appointee to the judiciary has a duty to apprise the appointing authority of every matter bearing on his fitness for judicial office, including circumstances that may reflect on his integrity and probity. By deliberately withholding information about the pending criminal case, respondent Judge attempted to mislead the JBC and the appointing authority. This act of concealment is clear proof of his lack of the qualifications of integrity and probity required by the Constitution for members of the judiciary. The fact that the criminal case was eventually dismissed is immaterial, as the charge is based on his dishonesty and misrepresentation in seeking office. The Court dismissed him from the service with forfeiture of all benefits and with prejudice to re-employment in any government branch, instrumentality, or agency.