A.M. No. RTJ-94-1195 February 26, 1997
Spouses Romeo P. Nazareno and Elisa A. Nazareno, complainants, vs. Judge Enrique M. Almario, respondent.

FACTS

The complainants, spouses Romeo and Elisa Nazareno, filed a sworn complaint for gross misconduct against Judge Enrique M. Almario, then presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 15, Naic, Cavite. They alleged that from 1990 to 1992, Judge Almario exploited their status as litigants with a pending case in his court. The specific instances included the judge soliciting money from Mrs. Nazareno, citing his nearing retirement and need for funds; demanding and receiving two separate cash sums of P10,000; requesting and receiving food for personal gatherings costing thousands of pesos; accepting P7,500 in cash purportedly in exchange for his salary check, which he never surrendered; and pressuring them to change their lawyer, followed by adverse rulings against them when they refused.
In his defense, Judge Almario categorically denied all allegations. The Supreme Court referred the case to Court of Appeals Associate Justice Conchita Carpio Morales for a formal investigation. During the investigation, Mrs. Nazareno testified consistently and in detail about the incidents. Crucially, the judge’s own court employees, Roldan Alcantara and Jose Salvadora Jr., corroborated key aspects of the complainants’ story, particularly regarding the judge’s requests for food from the litigants.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Enrique M. Almario is guilty of gross misconduct and conduct unbecoming a judge.

RULING

Yes, the Court found Judge Almario guilty of gross misconduct and dishonesty. The legal logic rests on the fundamental principle that a judge’s conduct must be, and must appear to be, free from any impropriety to preserve public confidence in the judiciary. The Court gave greater weight to the clear, consistent, and convincing testimony of complainant Elisa Nazareno, which withstood rigorous cross-examination. Her account was materially corroborated by the testimonies of the respondent’s own witnesses, his court employees, who confirmed that the judge solicited and received food from the complainants. This corroboration severely undermined the judge’s blanket denial.
The act of soliciting and accepting money and favors from parties with a pending case constitutes a severe violation of judicial ethics. It creates an undeniable appearance of corruption, bias, and partiality, which erodes the integrity of the judicial office. Such behavior is intolerable as it directly contradicts the duty of judges to avoid even the mere impression of impropriety. Since Judge Almario had already compulsorily retired by the time of the decision, the penalty of dismissal could no longer be imposed. Consequently, the Court ordered the forfeiture of all his retirement benefits and privileges, with prejudice to any future government reemployment, as the appropriate disciplinary sanction for his grave offenses.