G.R. No. A.M. No. MTJ-23-017 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 19-3073-MTJ). July 23, 2024.
Aldrin B. Magaoay, Complainant, vs. Hon. Ateneones S. Bacale, Presiding Judge, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Biliran-Cabucgayan, Biliran, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Aldrin Magaoay, a pharmaceutical supplier, alleged that in 2016, respondent Judge Ateneones S. Bacale informed him of a project to supply medicines worth PHP 129,000,000.00 to four Manila hospitals. Judge Bacale represented that his wife, Romilda, was the Executive Secretary of then-Mayor Joseph Estrada and could facilitate the procurement without bidding. Judge Bacale demanded and received an initial PHP 100,000.00 from Magaoay for accreditation. Magaoay later met with Joaquin Ashley Dela Cruz, introduced as Judge Bacale’s assistant, and over several years, gave approximately PHP 20,000,000.00 to Dela Cruz and Romilda for various fees. When the project failed to materialize, Magaoay filed an administrative complaint for gross misconduct against Judge Bacale, alleging conspiracy to defraud him. Judge Bacale admitted meeting Magaoay and receiving an envelope but denied knowledge of its contents or any conspiracy, claiming he merely acted as a messenger for his estranged wife, with whom he had reconnected after Typhoon Yolanda. The Judicial Integrity Board conducted a formal investigation where Magaoay presented evidence, including a photograph of Judge Bacale counting the money. Judge Bacale maintained his innocence but admitted awareness that the transactions were illegal.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Ateneones S. Bacale is administratively liable for Gross Misconduct constituting a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

RULING

Yes, respondent Judge Ateneones S. Bacale is found guilty of Gross Misconduct and is DISMISSED from service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits (except accrued leave credits) and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in any government agency. The Court found that Judge Bacale actively participated in a scheme to defraud complainant by soliciting and receiving money under the false pretense of securing a government contract, exploiting his judicial position to gain trust and assure the illegitimacy of the bypass of public bidding. His actions constituted gross misconduct, defined as a transgression of established rules of action through an unlawful or improper motive. His claim of being a mere messenger was contradicted by evidence, including his photograph counting the money and his admission of knowing the transaction’s illegality. Such conduct eroded public confidence in the judiciary and violated the Code of Judicial Conduct, which mandates that a judge’s personal behavior must be beyond reproach. The Court emphasized that judges must avoid even the appearance of impropriety. The penalty of dismissal is warranted as his actions demonstrated a patent disregard for ethical standards and the law.