G.R. No. RTJ-94-1140 & RTJ-94-1218. March 23, 1995.
Atty. Noe Cangco Zarate and Atty. Rosendo Chaves, complainants, vs. Judge Roberto B. Romanillos, respondent. Police Superintendent Marcelo E. Navarro, Jr., complainant, vs. Judge Roberto B. Romanillos, respondent.

FACTS

Two consolidated administrative complaints were filed against Judge Roberto B. Romanillos. In A.M. No. RTJ-94-1140, Atty. Noe Cangco Zarate charged the judge with illegal solicitation, grave abuse of position, and dishonesty. The charge stemmed from an election protest (Election Case No. B-1530) pending before the judge’s sala. Atty. Zarate alleged that the judge, through an intermediary named Roman Aquino, solicited and received P10,000.00 from his client, Mayor Roberto Gonzales. Atty. Zarate personally delivered the money to Judge Romanillos in his chambers, where the judge accepted it, stating he needed it for a trip to Cebu. Atty. Rosendo Chaves filed separate charges of dishonesty, immorality, and oppression, but these were not pursued during the investigation.
In A.M. No. RTJ-94-1218, Police Superintendent Marcelo E. Navarro, Jr. charged the judge with gross ignorance of the law for dismissing criminal cases on improper grounds. This complaint was also not substantiated as the complainant failed to appear at the investigative hearings. The Court referred the cases to Justice Delilah Vidallon-Magtolis of the Court of Appeals for investigation.

ISSUE

Whether Judge Roberto B. Romanillos is administratively liable for the acts complained of, particularly for soliciting and receiving money from a litigant with a pending case in his court.

RULING

Yes, Judge Romanillos is guilty of grave and serious misconduct. The investigation established that he solicited and accepted P10,000.00 from Mayor Gonzales, a party in an election case pending before him, through an intermediary. The testimonies of Atty. Zarate and witness Mrs. Cynthia Gomez Mercado were credible and consistent, detailing the solicitation and the personal delivery and acceptance of the money in the judge’s chambers. Judge Romanillos’s defense—that the money was a loan from Atty. Zarate as a friend—was unsubstantiated and belied by the circumstances.
This act constitutes a blatant violation of judicial ethics, undermining public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary. Although Judge Romanillos resigned during the pendency of the case, his resignation does not moot the administrative proceeding. Following precedent, the Court retains jurisdiction to pronounce guilt to serve the ends of justice and protect the public service. Accordingly, the Court found him guilty of grave misconduct warranting dismissal. As a consequence, the Court ordered the forfeiture of all his leave and retirement benefits and privileges, with prejudice to any reinstatement or reemployment in any government branch, instrumentality, or corporation.