G.R. No.: A.M. No. RTJ-16-2475 (Formerly A.M No. 16-07-261-RTC)
Date: February 4, 2020

Case Parties: Leonaria C. Neri, Abeto Labra Salcedo, Jr., Jocelyn Enerio Salcedo, Evangeline P. Camposano, and Hugo S. Amorillo, Jr., Complainants, v. Judge Bonifacio M. Macabaya, Branch 20, Regional Trial Court, Cagayan de Oro City, Misamis Oriental, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainants, who were litigants with cases pending before the sala of respondent Judge Bonifacio M. Macabaya of the RTC, Branch 20, Cagayan de Oro City, filed sworn statements alleging that the judge and his wife borrowed money and received properties from them. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) summarized the accusations:
1. Leonaria C. Neri alleged that respondent judge borrowed money from her on multiple occasions (totaling at least P150,000) while her daughter’s foreclosure case was pending, with promises that the “case will be settled” and she would “get your property.” The case remained undecided and the loans unpaid.
2. Spouses Abeto and Jocelyn Salcedo claimed that while their criminal and civil cases were pending, respondent asked for and received speakers, a P40,000 loan, a driftwood piece, a karaoke box, weekly deliveries of fish, and a P5,000 cash transfer. Respondent also told Abeto he would impose a penalty of 8-10 years in the criminal case. The case remained undecided.
3. Evangeline P. Camposano stated that respondent judge borrowed money from her three times (totaling P125,000) while her two cases were pending before his court. She complied because “he is the presiding judge of the court where [my] cases are pending.” She also expressed belief that respondent could no longer impartially decide her cases as he might be receiving money from the other party.
4. Hugo S. Amorillo, Jr. alleged that respondent and his wife went to his restaurant and house to borrow P100,000 while his application for a temporary restraining order was pending. He felt compelled to lend the money due to respondent’s position. The loan was partially repaid only after he filed a complaint.
In his defense, respondent judge generally denied the allegations, claiming they were fabricated due to his strictness in court and instigated by a dismissed court employee. He presented counter-affidavits from his wife and a sheriff, and argued the complaints were not verified. The case was referred to an Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals for investigation, who found the complainants’ testimonies credible, consistent, and corroborated by evidence like receipts and text messages, while respondent’s defenses were unsubstantiated.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Bonifacio M. Macabaya is administratively liable for borrowing money and receiving properties from litigants with cases pending before his court.

RULING

Yes, respondent judge is administratively liable. The Court found substantial evidence supporting the complainants’ allegations. Respondent judge violated Paragraph 7, Section 8, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, which explicitly prohibits borrowing money from litigants in cases pending before the court. This act also constitutes gross misconduct and a violation of the New Code of Judicial Conduct, which mandates that judges ensure their conduct is above reproach and free from any appearance of impropriety. By soliciting and accepting loans and properties from parties whose cases he was adjudicating, respondent grossly undermined judicial integrity, independence, and impartiality. Such behavior erodes public confidence in the judiciary. The offense is classified as a serious charge. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSED Judge Bonifacio M. Macabaya from the service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits (except accrued leave credits), and with prejudice to re-employment in any government agency or instrumentality.