A.M. No. RTJ-15-2437. December 09, 2020. AAA, Complainant, vs. Judge Jaime E. Contreras, Regional Trial Court, Br. 25, Naga City, Camarines Sur, Respondent.
FACTS

Complainant AAA, the acknowledged illegitimate daughter of respondent Judge Jaime E. Contreras, filed an administrative complaint accusing him of sexual molestation and rape spanning from 1994 to 2014. She alleged that the abuse began when she was a minor living in his household, escalating to repeated acts of rape, often under coercion and threats, including the taking of nude photographs to ensure her silence. Based on these allegations, she filed multiple criminal complaints against the respondent for acts of lasciviousness and rape before various prosecutors’ offices. In his defense, the respondent denied all accusations, characterizing them as fabrications motivated by extortion and familial discord.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) initially held the administrative case in abeyance pending the criminal proceedings and placed the respondent under preventive suspension. Subsequently, it was discovered that the respondent had become a fugitive from justice. A warrant for his arrest had been issued by the trial court handling the criminal cases, but he evaded capture, leading to his classification as a fugitive. The OCA then recommended that the administrative case proceed independently based on this act of evasion.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Jaime E. Contreras is administratively liable for grave misconduct due to his failure to submit to the legal process by becoming a fugitive from justice.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is guilty of grave misconduct. The Supreme Court emphasized that a judge is not above the law and must be the first to uphold its dignity. By evading a lawfully issued arrest warrant and becoming a fugitive, the respondent committed a blatant disregard of a fundamental legal process. This act constitutes grave misconduct, which is a serious transgression that erodes public confidence in the judiciary. The Court’s ruling is based solely on this uncontested fact of his fugitive status, which is a separate administrative offense, and deliberately refrains from making any findings on the underlying criminal charges of rape and sexual abuse, as those matters remain pending before the trial court.
The legal logic is clear: the respondent’s flight from justice is an act incompatible with the judicial office. It demonstrates a refusal to be bound by the very legal system he swore to administer, thereby bringing the judiciary into disrepute. His conduct warranted the supreme penalty. Consequently, the Court dismissed him from service with forfeiture of retirement benefits (except accrued leave credits), perpetual disqualification from public office, and referred the case to the Office of the Bar Confidant for disbarment proceedings.