G.R. No. RTJ-01-1655. July 8, 2004
ATTY. GRACE M. VELOSO AND MA. JOEYLYNN B. QUIÑONES, complainants, vs. JUDGE ANACLETO M. CAMINADE, RTC, Branch 6, Cebu City, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Atty. Grace Veloso, a PAO lawyer assigned to respondent Judge Anacleto Caminade’s court, alleged that on March 9, 2001, the judge asked her to stay in his chambers to discuss a case. While there, he suddenly placed his hand on her right thigh, squeezed it, took her hand and kissed it. When she attempted to leave, he blocked her path and said, “Let me kiss you.” Shocked, she rebuffed him and exited. She later requested reassignment. In his comment, Judge Caminade admitted touching her thigh and kissing her hand but claimed it was a spontaneous, playful gesture of thanks without malice, attributing it to his congenial nature.
Separately, complainant Ma. Joeylynn Quiñones, a Clerk III in the same court, alleged that in February 2001, the judge repeatedly squeezed her hand. On Valentine’s Day, he called her into his chambers, greeted her, then suddenly grabbed her hand and kissed her on the cheek, causing her distress. She subsequently avoided him and requested a transfer. The judge admitted the acts but insisted they were innocent, friendly gestures misinterpreted by the complainant.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Anacleto M. Caminade is administratively liable for conduct unbecoming a judicial officer, constituting sexual harassment.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found Judge Caminade guilty of sexual harassment and violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The Court rejected his defense of innocent playfulness and congeniality, emphasizing that judges are held to the highest standards of integrity and moral uprightness. His unwelcome physical advances—squeezing thighs and hands, and kissing subordinates—created an intimidating, hostile, and offensive environment, exploiting his superior position. Such conduct demonstrates moral depravity and a gross lack of respect for female employees who are entitled to a safe workplace.
The Court ruled that a judge’s behavior, both official and personal, must always be above reproach and beyond suspicion. Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct mandates that a judge’s conduct should be free from impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. By failing to meet this stringent standard, Judge Caminade committed a serious offense under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court. Accordingly, the Court suspended him from office for six months without pay, with a warning that repetition would warrant dismissal. The penalty serves to uphold judicial integrity and deter abuse of authority.