A.M. No. MTJ-10-1761. February 8, 2012. AIDA R. CAMPOS, ALISTAIR R. CAMPOS, and CHARMAINE R. CAMPOS, Complainants, vs. JUDGE ELISEO M. CAMPOS, Municipal Trial Court, Bayugan, Agusan del Sur, Respondent.
FACTS

Complainants, the wife and children of respondent Judge Eliseo M. Campos, filed an administrative complaint for serious misconduct, immorality, and dishonesty. The complaint stemmed from the respondent’s petition for declaration of nullity of his marriage to Aida, wherein he alleged his homosexuality and her infidelity. Aida countered that the petition was a pretext for the judge to marry another woman. Concurrently, Aida alleged that respondent executed an affidavit of loss over a land title registered in their son Alistair’s name, despite the title being in Alistair’s possession, to reclaim the property should the marriage be nullified.
Respondent denied having an affair, maintaining his homosexuality was the true reason for the petition. He admitted executing the affidavit of loss but claimed it was to protect his interest as the real owner, alleging Aida and Alistair planned to use the property as loan collateral. The investigating judge found no evidence to support the charges of immorality or dishonesty relating to the affidavit, as even Alistair admitted respondent was the true owner. However, the investigation uncovered a separate act of misconduct.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Eliseo M. Campos is administratively liable for the acts alleged in the complaint.

RULING

Yes, but only for Simple Misconduct regarding the property registration, not for the charges of immorality or dishonesty. The Court agreed with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) that complainants failed to substantiate the charges of immorality based on an alleged affair or on respondent’s claim of homosexuality, the latter being a matter for the nullity case. The charge of dishonesty regarding the affidavit of loss was also unproven, as respondent was found to be acting in good faith to protect his ownership interest, a fact acknowledged by the complainants.
However, the Court found respondent guilty of Simple Misconduct for having previously caused the registration of the subject property in the name of his then-minor son, Alistair. The investigating judge and OCA found this was a manipulative act done with the intention of defrauding a possible judgment-obligee in a pending case against respondent at that time. Simple misconduct is an unlawful behavior by a public officer relating to official duties, transgressing established rules of conduct. By exploiting his legal knowledge to orchestrate this fraudulent transfer, respondent committed an improper act warranting disciplinary sanction.
As a less serious charge under the Rules of Court, simple misconduct is punishable by suspension or a fine. Since respondent had already resigned, suspension was impractical. The Court modified the OCA’s recommendation and imposed a fine of Twenty Thousand Pesos (₱20,000), to be deducted from any remaining benefits or paid directly.