G.R. No. RTJ-99-1517 February 26, 2002
Purita T. Lim, complainant, vs. Judge Demetrio D. Calimag, Jr., Regional Trial Court, Branch 35, Santiago City, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Purita T. Lim, a businesswoman, charged respondent Judge Demetrio D. Calimag, Jr. with conduct unbecoming a judge, maltreatment, and failure to pay an obligation. She alleged that in November 1996, the judge, through his staff, requested a meeting and subsequently asked for a ₱30,000 loan, providing a signed acknowledgment receipt. The amount was delivered to his office. Despite repeated demands after his return from abroad, the judge failed to pay, shouting at her during one encounter. Complainant also believed the judge refused to inhibit himself from a case involving her due to these collection attempts.
In his comment, respondent judge denied soliciting a loan, claiming the ₱30,000 was for construction materials purchased on credit. He admitted a balance but argued it was offset by repair costs for his vehicle damaged by complainant’s employee in December 1997. He defended his non-inhibition in the civil case, stating it was raffled to his branch a year after the transaction and that the motion for inhibition was filed only after his decision.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Demetrio D. Calimag, Jr. is administratively liable for his actions.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent judge administratively liable and ordered his dismissal. The investigating Justice found credible evidence of two distinct debts: one for materials and a separate ₱30,000 cash loan covered by a receipt, which remained unpaid. The Court rejected the judge’s claim of compensation, noting the loan was due in January 1997, long before the alleged vehicular accident in December 1997, making offsetting untenable. His excuses and confrontational behavior demonstrated a willful failure to pay a just debt, a serious charge under the Rules of Court.
The Court emphasized that a judge’s conduct must be beyond reproach. Respondent’s actions, coupled with his prior administrative admonitions, showed a pattern of misconduct eroding public confidence in the judiciary. For willful failure to pay a just debt, gross misconduct, and violations of judicial ethics, the penalty of dismissal was imposed. He was also ordered to pay complainant ₱30,000 with interest. The issue of his non-inhibition in the civil case was deemed best left to the appellate court where that case was pending.