G.R. No. A.M. No. R-97-RTJ & A.C. No. 2656, May 28, 1987
The Court Administrator, complainant, vs. Rodolfo G. Hermoso, Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 168, Pasig, Metro Manila and Romulo Flores, Deputy Sheriff, respondents.

Lilian Cabrera Ang, complainant, vs. Rodolfo G. Hermoso, Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 168, Pasig, Metro Manila, respondent.

FACTS

These consolidated administrative and disbarment cases arose from a bribery complaint against Judge Rodolfo G. Hermoso and his deputy sheriff, Romulo Flores. The charges stemmed from Civil Case No. 50310, “Lilian Cabrera Ang v. Jimmy Yu,” where Judge Hermoso rendered a default judgment. The parties later entered into a compromise agreement, but complainants Ang and her co-defendant Lourdes Nieva alleged that the judge refused to approve it and release an attached payloader unless they paid him a percentage of the equipment’s value. After negotiation, the amount was allegedly set at P5,000.00.
The complainants reported the matter to the NBI, which orchestrated an entrapment operation on March 2, 1984. An NBI agent, posing as a relative, offered a marked envelope containing the money to Judge Hermoso in his chambers. According to the NBI agents’ testimony, the judge initially directed the agent to give the envelope to Flores but ultimately placed it inside his desk drawer. Upon a pre-arranged signal, NBI agents entered, recovered the envelope from the drawer, and invited the judge for investigation. A criminal case was subsequently filed with the Sandiganbayan, leading to the preventive suspension of both respondents.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Judge Rodolfo G. Hermoso and Deputy Sheriff Romulo Flores are administratively liable for gross misconduct and whether Judge Hermoso should be disbarred.

RULING

Yes, both respondents are guilty. The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the Investigating Justice, giving full credence to the straightforward and consistent testimonies of the NBI agents, who were disinterested parties performing their official duty. Their account of the entrapment—that Judge Hermoso received and concealed the marked money in his desk—was deemed more credible than the judge’s denial. The Court found the judge’s claim that the envelope remained on his desk implausible, as it was inconsistent with the photograph evidence showing it inside the drawer and the immediate recovery by the agents.
The dismissal of the criminal case in the Sandiganbayan for insufficiency of evidence did not bar the administrative proceedings, which require only substantial evidence. The judge’s actions, soliciting and accepting money in relation to an official function, constituted gross misconduct and gross dishonesty, warranting the ultimate penalty. His conduct utterly betrayed the integrity and impartiality demanded of a judicial officer and a member of the Bar. Consequently, the Court dismissed both respondents from service effective the date of their preventive suspension, with forfeiture of all retirement and benefits. Judge Hermoso was also disbarred for conduct unbecoming a lawyer. The decision underscores that the judiciary’s credibility depends on the probity of its members, and any corruption necessitates severe sanctions to preserve public faith.