A.M. No. 306-MJ. July 25, 1975.
Monica Sarmiento, complainant, vs. Raymundo R. Cruz, Municipal Judge of Norzagaray, Bulacan, respondent.

FACTS

The administrative complaint arose from the respondent judge’s private dealings with complainant Monica Sarmiento and her father, Emiliano. In 1964, respondent, a first cousin of Emiliano’s wife, facilitated the sale of a family property for P50,000. He arranged for P40,000 of the proceeds to be deposited in a joint account for Emiliano and Monica, assuring them it would earn interest. Exploiting the family’s trust, respondent later had the elderly Emiliano sign withdrawal slips without Monica’s knowledge, withdrawing P35,000 from this deposit for his own use.
Respondent admitted receiving the money in a 1966 instrument, initially claiming it was for a joint trucking venture, then later offering inconsistent explanations. Despite demands, he failed to return the funds for nearly five years, compelling Monica to file an estafa complaint. This led to a real estate mortgage from respondent to secure P41,000 (including interest) and a subsequent interpleader suit he filed, which ended in a compromise. The money was finally returned in December 1968.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Raymundo R. Cruz is administratively liable for misconduct based on his private financial dealings with the complainant and her family.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of serious misconduct. The Court emphasized that a judge’s conduct must be irreproachable in both public and private life to maintain public trust in the judiciary. The investigating judge found that respondent “wantonly violated” the complete trust reposed in him by the Sarmientos to serve his own selfish interests. His actions—withdrawing and appropriating their funds under false pretenses, providing inconsistent justifications, and refusing repayment for years—constitute dishonesty and gross abuse of confidence.
This behavior is a clear departure from the high ethical standards required of judicial officers. Any act of dishonesty or unfairness by a judge severely diminishes the integrity of the office. While the Court considered mitigating factors, including respondent’s eventual restitution of P41,000, his retirement from the bench, approximately ten years of service, and his physical condition, these did not exonerate him. The misconduct warranted a significant penalty. Accordingly, the Court imposed a fine equivalent to six months’ salary, to be deducted from his retirement benefits.