G.R. No. RTJ-93-944 and RTJ-93-959. July 20, 1994.
Rizalia Capuno and Thelma Villanueva, and PSM Development Corporation and Celia Pamplona, complainants, vs. Judge Ausberto B. Jaramillo, Jr., respondent.

FACTS

In A.M. No. RTJ-93-944, complainants Rizalia Capuno and her daughter Thelma Villanueva alleged that after respondent Judge Jaramillo granted a writ of possession in favor of Pedro Calara, Jr. against Capuno, the judge summoned them to his chambers. He demanded P200,000 in cash and a P150,000 postdated check to prevent Capuno’s eviction, later reducing the amount to P150,000 cash plus a check. The complainants, unable to pay, were subsequently evicted. Their testimony was corroborated by witness Gregorio Capistrano. The judge denied the charges, claiming harassment.
In the consolidated case, A.M. No. RTJ-93-959, PSM Development Corporation and Celia Pamplona accused Judge Jaramillo of demanding and receiving P50,000 from their counsel, Atty. Nelson Loyola, to secure a favorable temporary restraining order (TRO) in a civil case. Evidence showed the judge received the money in his car, and the TRO was issued the following day. The judge admitted receiving an envelope from the lawyer but claimed it contained only case documents, not money.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Ausberto B. Jaramillo, Jr. is administratively liable for conduct unbecoming a judge and for gross misconduct constituting violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

RULING

Yes, the respondent judge is administratively liable. The Court found the charges substantiated by clear and convincing evidence. In the first case, the detailed and consistent testimonies of the complainants and their witness, who had no apparent ill motive to falsely accuse a judge, were deemed credible. The judge’s mere denial could not overcome this positive evidence. His act of demanding money from litigants in a case pending before him is a gross violation of judicial integrity and the canon that a judge’s conduct must be free from impropriety.
In the second case, the Court found the version of the complainants and Atty. Loyola more credible. The judge’s claim that the envelope contained only papers was implausible, given the circumstances of the secretive meeting in his car and the immediate issuance of the TRO. This act of soliciting and accepting money in exchange for a court order is a flagrant form of corruption that utterly erodes public confidence in the judiciary. Such conduct constitutes gross misconduct and gross ignorance of the law, warranting the severest penalty. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSED respondent Judge Ausberto B. Jaramillo, Jr. from service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and with prejudice to reinstatement.