AM 2180 Mj; (May, 1982) (Digest)
Adm. Matter No. 2180-MJ, May 31, 1982
Ephraim Mariano, Doris Quinto and Ruth Roman, complainants, vs. Municipal Judge Crisostomo Gonzales, Dingalan, Aurora, respondent.
FACTS
Complainants, including two nurses boarding at Ephraim Mariano’s house, alleged that on September 21, 1977, respondent Municipal Judge Crisostomo Gonzales, accompanied by several male companions, went to Mariano’s house. The judge asked the nurses to accompany his friends for a stroll along Dingalan Bay. The nurses refused, citing their busy schedule and the late hour. The respondent judge perceived this refusal as an affront, became infuriated, and proceeded to berate the nurses in a rude manner.
In his required Comment, the respondent judge, while alleging a “gross distortion” of facts, effectively admitted the core allegations. He conceded that he had invited the nurses to go to the beach with his guests, was angered when they did not go, and went to Mariano’s house to confront them. He acknowledged having an argument with nurse Doris Quinto, whom he found disrespectful, and that he “admonished her in a manner she would understand.” The case was referred for investigation, but the complainants failed to appear at scheduled hearings due to unreceived notices after changing residences.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge Crisostomo Gonzales is administratively liable for conduct unbecoming of a judge based on the incident.
RULING
Yes, the respondent judge is administratively liable. The Supreme Court ruled that the failure of the complainants to testify or their desistance does not automatically warrant dismissal if the charges are sufficiently established by the record. Here, the respondent’s own Comment and admissions provided an adequate factual basis. The Court agreed with the Inquest Judge’s finding that the respondent tried to impose his will on the nurses to accommodate his guests, leading to a discourteous argument and an arrogant admonishment.
This behavior, exhibited within the municipality where he holds office and inside a private residence, constitutes conduct unbecoming of a judge. A judge must comport himself with civility, humility, and consideration for the rights of others, avoiding any action that degrades or embarrasses the judiciary. His actions failed to meet this standard. Consequently, the Court found him guilty and imposed a fine equivalent to two months’ salary, with a stern warning against repetition.