AM MTJ 04 1563; (September, 2004) (Digest)
A.M. No. MTJ-04-1563. September 8, 2004. LUCILA TAN, complainant, vs. Judge MAXWEL S. ROSETE, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Lucila Tan was the private complainant in two criminal cases pending before the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 58, San Juan, presided by respondent Judge Maxwel S. Rosete. She alleged that before the cases were decided, a member of the judge’s staff approached her at a restaurant, showed her unsigned draft decisions dismissing her complaints, and conveyed the judge’s demand for ₱150,000 in exchange for reversing the dismissals. Tan refused the demand, and the cases were eventually dismissed. She filed an administrative complaint for gross misconduct and violation of the Anti-Graft Act.
Judge Rosete denied the allegations in his Comment. He counter-claimed that it was Tan who attempted to bribe him for a favorable decision and sought the intervention of then-Mayor Jinggoy Estrada to influence the case. He asserted he had already finalized and entrusted the decisions for promulgation before leaving for a study leave, making it impossible for him or his staff to have shown draft decisions to Tan as alleged.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge Maxwel S. Rosete is administratively liable for gross misconduct.
RULING
Yes, respondent Judge Rosete is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found the complainant’s version more credible, supported by the documentary evidence of an unsigned draft decision. The Court gave weight to the findings of the Investigating Judge, who noted material inconsistencies in the testimonies of the respondent’s witnesses and found their affidavits suspect for being identically worded. The Court also found the respondent’s defense—that he had already turned over the decisions before his travel—untenable, as his own travel documents showed he was in the country during the period the illicit meeting allegedly occurred.
The legal logic rests on the exacting standards of judicial conduct. Judges must be beyond reproach to preserve public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality. Respondent’s act of sending a staff member to negotiate with a litigant outside court premises and his own act of meeting with litigants privately constitute gross misconduct. These actions violate the Code of Judicial Conduct, which mandates that a judge’s personal behavior must be free from any appearance of impropriety. Such conduct erodes public trust and places the judiciary in disrepute. Consequently, the Court suspended Judge Rosete from office for four months without pay.