A.M. No. RTJ-02-1708. July 23, 2002.
CYNTHIA RESNGIT-MARQUEZ, SHIELAH J. RAMOS, ROSALINDA L. ROQUILLAS and VICKY F. RAMOS, complainants, vs. JUDGE VICTOR T. LLAMAS, JR., Regional Trial Court, Branch 56, San Carlos City, Pangasinan, respondent.
FACTS
Complainants, court employees, charged respondent Judge Victor T. Llamas, Jr. with immorality and gross misconduct. They alleged that the married judge maintained an illicit relationship with a married woman, Lourdes Muñoz-Garcia, living together as husband and wife. They further claimed his courtroom was routinely used for drinking sessions and dancing during office hours, with the judge often drunk and harassing staff who refused to participate. The scandalous affair was reportedly public knowledge, with Garcia openly addressing the judge as “Daddy.”
In his defense, Judge Llamas denied all accusations. The case was referred to Court of Appeals Associate Justice Romeo A. Brawner for investigation. After lengthy hearings with multiple witnesses from both sides, the Investigating Justice found the complainants’ evidence credible and sufficient. The investigation established that the judge cohabited with Garcia in various residences, engaged in regular drinking and merrymaking in his courtroom during work hours, and conducted himself in a manner that eroded public respect for the judiciary.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge Victor T. Llamas, Jr. is administratively liable for immorality and gross misconduct.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent Judge guilty of immorality and dismissed him from service. The Court adopted the findings of the Investigating Justice, emphasizing that a judge’s personal conduct must be beyond reproach. The evidence conclusively proved the judge’s cohabitation with a woman not his wife, constituting disgraceful and immoral conduct. Such behavior violates the Code of Judicial Conduct, which mandates that a judge must avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities. A magistrate is expected to be a exemplar of integrity, as public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by such scandalous behavior.
The Court rejected any mitigating circumstance based on the non-participation of the judge’s wife in the complaint. Applying Section 8 of A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC (amending Rule 140), immorality is a serious charge punishable by dismissal. Accordingly, Judge Llamas was DISMISSED from service with forfeiture of 50% of all retirement benefits (excluding accrued leave credits) and with prejudice to re-employment in any government agency. The penalty serves to uphold the exacting standards of judicial conduct and preserve the integrity of the judiciary.