AM R 278 RTJ; (May, 1986) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.M. Nos. R-278-RTJ & R-309-RTJ May 30, 1986
ATTY. ENRICO M. CABRERA, complainant, vs. JUDGE JAMES B. PAJARES, Regional Trial Court, Naga City, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Atty. Enrico M. Cabrera, a defendant in a civil case pending before respondent Judge James B. Pajares, alleged that in September 1984, the judge intimated a need for money. Following his counsel’s advice, Cabrera gave him P1,000.00. When the judge allegedly solicited money again before Christmas 1984, Cabrera sought NBI assistance for an entrapment. On January 22, 1985, Cabrera, accompanied by an NBI agent posing as his wife, visited Judge Pajares in his chambers. After a discussion about his case, Cabrera handed the judge an envelope containing ten marked P100 bills. Cabrera then exited, signaling waiting NBI agents. The agents entered and found the marked envelope inserted between the pages of the judge’s open diary on his table. Forensic examination confirmed the presence of fluorescent powder on the bills, the envelope, the diary, and on the thumb and index fingers of the judge’s left hand.
ISSUE
The central issue is whether Judge Pajares accepted the P1,000.00 from Cabrera, knowing it was given in connection with his official functions, thereby warranting administrative liability.
RULING
The Supreme Court found Judge Pajares guilty of serious misconduct and ordered his dismissal. The Court rejected the judge’s defense that he momentarily accepted the envelope believing it contained a surveyor’s fee, intending to immediately return it. This claim was contradicted by the physical evidence and sequence of events. The marked money was recovered from his personal diary, and forensic powder was found on his fingers and the diary, indicating handling and concealment. The Court emphasized that a judge’s conduct must be beyond reproach, as judges are visible representations of law and justice. The act of accepting money from a litigant in a pending case constitutes grave misconduct prejudicial to the public interest and the judiciary’s integrity. While the investigating justice recommended suspension, the Supreme Court imposed the ultimate penalty of dismissal, with forfeiture of all benefits and disqualification from future government service, as the misconduct warranted separation from the judicial service. The Court acquitted him of a separate charge of soliciting testimonials for lack of evidence.