G.R. No. A.M. No. MTJ-87-79 & A.C. No. 3040 September 13, 1991
LEONILA A. VISTAN, complainant, vs. JUDGE RUBEN T. NICOLAS, respondent.

FACTS

The complainant, Leonila A. Vistan, filed two consolidated administrative and disbarment cases against respondent Judge Ruben T. Nicolas. In A.M. No. MTJ-87-79, the complainant charged the respondent with gross ignorance of the law and grave abuse of authority for rendering a decision in a criminal case without first resolving the accused’s formal offer of evidence. She also accused him of immorality for cohabiting with a woman not his wife and fathering a child with her. The administrative case was initially dismissed as moot when the respondent resigned to run for Congress but was reinstated upon his reappointment as a judge in 1989.
In the disbarment case, A.C. No. 3040, the complainant reiterated the charges of rendering an unjust judgment and immorality, and added a charge for violation of election laws. She alleged that while still a sitting judge, the respondent circulated letters in February 1987, prior to the official campaign period, announcing his candidacy for Congressman in Bulacan. The respondent admitted sending the letters but claimed he was merely consulting constituents about a potential candidacy, not electioneering.

ISSUE

The primary issues are: (1) whether the respondent judge is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law and grave abuse of authority; (2) whether he is liable for immorality; and (3) whether he violated election laws and the Code of Judicial Conduct by engaging in partisan political activity.

RULING

The Court found the respondent guilty of gross misconduct for violating election laws and of immorality. On the charge of gross ignorance of the law for rendering a judgment without resolving a formal offer of evidence, the Court, upon evaluation by the Office of the Court Administrator, found the charge unsubstantiated. However, the charges for immorality and election law violations were proven.
Regarding the election law violation, the Court ruled that the respondent’s act of circulating letters in February 1987 announcing his congressional candidacy while still an incumbent judge constituted prohibited partisan political activity. This violated Section 45 of the Civil Service Law (P.D. No. 807) and Rule 5.10 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which strictly forbid judges from publicly endorsing candidates or engaging in political campaigns. His defense of mere “consultation” was untenable, as the letters were a clear public declaration of candidacy aimed at electoral constituents.
On the charge of immorality, the investigating judge found, and the Supreme Court agreed, that the respondent openly cohabited with a woman not his wife, representing themselves as husband and wife in the community, which tarnished the integrity of the judiciary. A judge’s personal conduct must be beyond reproach to preserve public confidence. Given the gravity of these offenses, particularly the immorality which struck at the heart of judicial integrity, the Court imposed the supreme penalty. In A.M. No. MTJ-87-79, the respondent was dismissed from service with forfeiture of all benefits. In A.C. No. 3040, the disbarment prayer was denied, but he was severely censured for the election misconduct.