G.R. No. MTJ-04-1520. January 27, 2004. ROMEO T. ZACARIAS, Complainant, vs. JUDGE MARTONINO R. MARCOS and SHIRLEY M. VISAYA, Clerk of Court, Respondents.
FACTS:

Complainant Romeo T. Zacarias, an accused in a criminal case, charged Judge Martonino R. Marcos and Clerk of Court Shirley M. Visaya with immoral conduct and illegal solicitation. Zacarias alleged that after a warrant for his arrest was issued for failure to attend the promulgation of a judgment of conviction, respondents summoned him to the judge’s chambers and solicited money in exchange for altering the decision before its promulgation. He further claimed he was required to post a P1,000.00 cash bond for his provisional liberty despite being arrested to serve his sentence, and that the clerk again asked for money, which he refused. Zacarias also asserted that the judge and clerk were engaged in an illicit affair, which was reportedly common knowledge in the locality.
Respondents denied all allegations. Judge Marcos claimed the complaint was a harassment suit, explaining that the money involved pertained to legal fees for the cash bond and payment of damages, not a bribe. He presented court documents to support the regularity of the bond posting and release order. Both respondents vehemently denied having an immoral relationship, with the judge citing his active religious and community involvement as evidence of his moral character. Clerk Visaya similarly denied any wrongdoing and adopted the judge’s defenses.

ISSUE

Whether respondents are administratively liable for conduct unbecoming of judicial officers based on the allegations of illegal solicitation and immoral conduct.

RULING

Yes, respondents are administratively liable. The Court found the charge of illegal solicitation not substantiated by clear evidence. The sequence of events and official documents presented by the judge showed that the P1,000.00 was properly posted as a cash bond for Zacarias’s provisional liberty after he expressed intent to apply for probation, and was later refunded. The allegation of bribery therefore lacked credible foundation.
However, the Court found the charge of immoral conduct to be sufficiently proven. The investigating justice credited the testimony of a court insider and other evidence indicating that the judge and clerk were cohabiting and conducting themselves in a manner that created public scandal. The judge’s defenses, including his religious activities, were deemed insufficient to overcome the evidence of an illicit relationship. Such conduct grossly violates the exacting standards of morality and propriety required of all judiciary personnel. A judge’s personal behavior must be beyond reproach to preserve public confidence in the judicial system. The clerk of court, as an officer of the court, is likewise bound by similar standards of integrity and decency. Their actions constituted grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.