G.R. No. A.M. No. MTJ-91-622. March 22, 1993
ATTY. MANUEL T. UBARRA, complainant, vs. JUDGE LUZVIMINDA M. MAPALAD, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Atty. Manuel T. Ubarra, on behalf of his client Juanito A. Calderon, charged respondent Judge Luzviminda M. Mapalad, Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Pulilan, Bulacan, with grave misconduct, knowingly rendering an unjust judgment, violation of the Canons of Judicial Ethics, and failure to decide within the mandated ninety-day period in Criminal Case No. 89-3905 for Grave Threats. The offended party, Calderon, alleged that during the trial, the accused, Roberto Cruda, worked as a houseboy of the respondent. Cruda later married the respondent’s youngest sister, Annabelle V. Manlangit, on August 9, 1991, with the respondent herself solemnizing the marriage at her office. Despite this relationship, respondent did not inhibit herself from the case and instead rendered a decision on October 17, 1991, acquitting Cruda. Respondent had earlier inhibited herself from another case (Criminal Case No. 90-4056) involving Cruda on September 7, 1991, citing the same relationship to avoid suspicion. In her answer, respondent admitted deciding the case beyond the 90-day reglementary period and explained her efforts to rehabilitate Cruda, including interceding in the settlement of his other criminal cases. She claimed the ground for inhibition did not exist during the trial as the marriage occurred after its termination.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Luzviminda M. Mapalad is administratively liable for grave misconduct, gross inefficiency, neglect of duty, gross ignorance of the law, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

RULING

Yes, respondent Judge is administratively liable. The Supreme Court, adopting the findings and recommendation of the investigating Executive Judge, held that respondent committed grave misconduct by rendering an unjust decision while aware of her relationship with the accused, violating Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court and Section 12 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics. She decided the case beyond the 90-day reglementary period, constituting gross inefficiency and neglect of duty. Her admission of interceding in the settlement of other criminal cases against Cruda amounted to acting as counsel for the accused, violating Rule 2.01, Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and demonstrating gross ignorance of the law. This conduct diminished public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality. Accordingly, respondent Judge Luzviminda M. Mapalad was DISMISSED from service with forfeiture of all benefits (except accrued leave credits) and with prejudice to re-employment in any government branch or corporation.