A.M. No. MTJ-01-1383. July 17, 2003. PERLITA AVANCENA, complainant, vs. JUDGE RICARDO P. LIWANAG, MTC, San Jose del Monte, Bulacan, respondent.
FACTS

In a Decision dated March 5, 2003, the Court dismissed respondent Judge Ricardo P. Liwanag from service for violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. No. 3019). The charges stemmed from his handling of Criminal Cases Nos. 7258-97 and 7259-97, where he was found to have engaged in a scheme to delay the promulgation of a decision to extort money from the complainant, Perlita Avancena. The Court also ordered him to show cause why he should not be disbarred.
Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration and a compliance with the show-cause order. He argued that the evidence was insufficient, claiming the entrapment was not alleged in the original complaint, that the delay in promulgation was due to the complainant’s own motions, that the testimony about him showing the conviction decision was an afterthought, and that the Investigating Judge was biased.

ISSUE

Whether the Motion for Reconsideration should be granted and whether respondent should be disbarred.

RULING

The Court denied the Motion for Reconsideration and ordered respondent’s disbarment. The ruling is based on the following legal logic: First, in administrative proceedings, technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied. The fact that certain details emerged only during the investigation does not discredit the testimonial evidence, as respondent was amply given the opportunity to be heard, which satisfies administrative due process. Second, the delay in promulgation was substantiated by evidence as part of respondent’s extortion scheme, not merely due to the complainant’s motions.
Third, the charge was not a mere afterthought, as it had been the basis of a prior motion for inhibition. Fourth, the Investigating Judge’s assessment of the witnesses’ credibility, favoring the complainant’s version over respondent’s denial, is accorded respect. No evidence substantiated the claim of the Investigating Judge’s bias. The quantum of proof required is substantial evidence, not proof beyond reasonable doubt, and this standard was met.
Regarding disbarment, a lawyer’s oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility demand the highest standards of integrity. Respondent’s unlawful and deceitful conduct, violating R.A. No. 3019 while in judicial office, constitutes conduct unbecoming of a lawyer. The purpose of disbarment is to protect the public and the administration of justice, not to punish. Respondent’s actions demonstrated a fundamental unfitness to remain a member of the Bar. Thus, dismissal from the service and disbarment are affirmed.