A.M. No. RTJ-02-1713. October 25, 2005. ROMULO D. JABON and PLARIDEL D. BOHOL, complainants, vs. JUDGE SIBANAH E. USMAN, Regional Trial Court, Branch 28, Catbalogan, Samar, respondent.
FACTS

Complainants Romulo D. Jabon and Atty. Plaridel D. Bohol filed separate administrative complaints against Judge Sibanah E. Usman, consolidating multiple allegations of judicial misconduct. Jabon’s complaint, supported by a sworn statement, accused the respondent judge of graft and corruption for allegedly coercing him to buy jewelry to facilitate ex-parte proceedings, incompetence for case backlog, ignorance of the law for issuing an improper injunction, dishonesty for participating in an auction sale, partiality in handling cases involving friends, fraternization with lawyers who provided him benefits, and habitual absenteeism. Atty. Bohol’s complaint echoed similar charges of partiality and corrupt practices, specifically alleging that Judge Usman demanded money for favorable actions and manipulated proceedings for personal gain, such as expressing displeasure when a case was settled without his involvement, depriving him of a potential monetary benefit from releasing an attached vehicle.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Sibanah E. Usman is administratively liable for the various acts of misconduct alleged by the complainants, including graft, corruption, ignorance of the law, dishonesty, partiality, and conduct unbecoming of a judicial officer.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found Judge Usman guilty of gross misconduct and ordered his dismissal from service. The Court emphasized that the standard of proof in administrative cases is substantial evidence. While some charges like absenteeism and gross ignorance were not sufficiently proven, the evidence for grave misconduct was compelling. The Investigating Justice found the testimonies of the complainants, particularly Atty. Bohol, to be credible, detailed, and consistent. Crucially, Judge Usman’s own testimony during cross-examination fatally undermined his defense. He admitted that Atty. Bohol had loaned him money and that he had borrowed an air conditioning unit from a litigant’s counsel, which he only returned after the complaint was filed. These admissions substantiated the charge of fraternization and accepting favors, creating an undeniable appearance of impropriety. The Court ruled that such actions violated the Code of Judicial Conduct, which mandates that a judge’s official conduct must be free from the appearance of impropriety. By soliciting and accepting financial and material benefits from individuals with pending cases in his court, Judge Usman exhibited gross misconduct prejudicial to the best interests of the service. His actions eroded public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality. Consequently, the Court imposed the ultimate penalty of dismissal, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to re-employment in any government branch or instrumentality.