G.R. No. A.M. No. 17-11-06-CA, March 13, 2018
RE: ANONYMOUS LETTER-COMPLAINT AGAINST ASSOCIATE JUSTICE NORMANDIE B. PIZARRO, COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS

An anonymous letter-complaint charged Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro with habitual gambling in casinos, “selling” judicial decisions, and maintaining an illicit relationship. The complaint, referred by the Office of the Ombudsman to the Supreme Court, alleged that Justice Pizarro lost millions gambling daily, used corrupt gains to buy properties and vehicles for a mistress, and traveled abroad to gamble. The complaint included photographs purportedly showing him at casino tables in Clark, Pampanga.
In his Comment, Justice Pizarro admitted he was the person in the photographs, explaining he was accompanying a friend and played in a “parlor game fashion.” He also confessed to playing at a casino in 2009, attributing it to the indiscretion of a man who had just learned he had terminal cancer. He categorically denied all other allegations of corruption and immorality, characterizing them as baseless and malicious attacks by detractors.

ISSUE

Whether Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro is administratively liable for the accusations in the anonymous complaint.

RULING

The Court dismissed the charges of corruption and immorality for lack of merit but found Justice Pizarro guilty of conduct unbecoming a member of the judiciary for gambling in a casino. Under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, an anonymous complaint must be supported by public records of indubitable integrity. The serious accusations of “selling” decisions and maintaining an illicit relationship were bare allegations without any supporting evidence or public records, and thus deserved no consideration. The Court emphasized its duty to protect members of the judiciary from unsubstantiated charges while requiring substantial evidence to prove administrative liability.
However, regarding gambling, while the anonymous complaint itself did not meet the strict evidentiary requirement, Justice Pizarro’s own judicial admission in his Comment established the fact. He admitted to being the person in the photographs and to playing in a casino in 2009. Gambling in casinos constitutes conduct unbecoming of a justice, as it violates the standard that a judge’s personal behavior must be beyond reproach. The Court rejected his justifications, noting that the gravity of gambling is not diminished by the stakes or the circumstances. It undermines public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Considering his admission, length of service, and the absence of previous administrative penalties, the Court imposed a fine of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱100,000.00).