G.R. No. A.M. No. MTJ-98-1144 and A.M. No. MTJ-98-1148. July 22, 1998.
Case Parties:

FLORIDE DAWA, NORALIZ L. JORGENSEN, FEMENINA LAZARO-BARRETO, and Clerk of Court MONA LISA A. BUENCAMINO, complainants, vs. Judge ARMANDO C. DE ASA, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 51, Caloocan City, respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Judge Armando C. de Asa, presiding judge of Branch 51 and acting executive judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Caloocan City, was charged with sexual harassment and/or acts of lasciviousness in two consolidated administrative complaints.
1. In a letter-complaint dated August 15, 1997, complainants Floride Dawa (stenographic reporter, Branch 52), Noraliz L. Jorgensen (casual employee detailed to the Office of the Clerk of Court), and Femenina Lazaro-Barreto (court stenographer, Branch 53) alleged specific instances of unwanted sexual advances by the respondent judge:
* Floride Dawa testified that on August 8, 1997, respondent judge called her into his chamber, put his arm around her shoulder, held her jaw, and kissed her on the lips twice despite her resistance.
* Noraliz Jorgensen testified to four separate incidents between January and August 1997, where respondent judge, on occasions when she delivered payrolls or secured his signature, kissed her on the cheek, licked her ear, kissed her on the lips while restraining her, and made an unwelcome dinner invitation.
* Femenina Lazaro-Barreto testified that on July 22, 1997, after she brought a draft order for his signature, respondent judge held her chin and kissed her.
2. In a subsequent affidavit-complaint dated September 5, 1997, Atty. Mona Lisa A. Buencamino (Clerk of Court) charged respondent judge with sexual harassment, grave misconduct, and violation of judicial ethics. She testified that on several occasions, respondent judge made unwelcome physical contact (holding her hand, touching her knee, embracing her) and made suggestive remarks, creating a hostile work environment.
The Supreme Court placed respondent judge under preventive suspension and referred the cases for investigation. The investigating justice found the complainants’ testimonies credible, consistent, and corroborated by each other. Respondent judge denied the allegations, claiming the complaints were motivated by malice due to work-related conflicts, but the investigating justice found his denials weak and unsupported.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Armando C. de Asa is administratively liable for gross misconduct and immorality warranting dismissal from the service.

RULING

Yes, respondent Judge Armando C. de Asa is guilty of gross misconduct and immorality.
The Supreme Court affirmed the findings and recommendation of the investigating justice. The Court held that the detailed, straightforward, and consistent testimonies of the four complainants, who had no ill motive to falsely accuse the respondent, constituted substantial evidence of his guilt. Their accounts painted a pattern of abuse of authority and predatory behavior.
The Court emphasized that a judge’s conduct must be beyond reproach and free from any appearance of impropriety. By sexually harassing his subordinates, respondent judge grossly violated the Code of Judicial Conduct. He betrayed the high standards of moral uprightness required of the judiciary, took advantage of his superior position, and created a hostile work environment. His actions constituted grave misconduct and immorality, which are serious transgressions warranting the ultimate penalty.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
Respondent Judge Armando C. de Asa is DISMISSED from the service for gross misconduct and immorality, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and leave credits, and with prejudice to reemployment in any branch of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.