G.R. No. SCC-00-5 November 29, 2000
SALAMA S. ANSA, complainant, vs. JUDGE SALIH MUSA, Shari’a Circuit Court, Buluan, Maguindanao, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Salama S. Ansa, a court stenographer, charged respondent Judge Salih Musa with Gross Immorality. She alleged that in June 1994, while she was assigned under his supervision at the Shari’a Court of Isulan and he was a Clerk of Court and an Ulama, respondent, a married man, initiated amorous advances. Despite her initial rebuke, citing his position and religious standing, he persisted, assuring her there were no legal impediments to marriage under Muslim law. Complainant eventually succumbed, leading to a prolonged affair involving trysts in various establishments. She ended the relationship when she realized respondent had no intention of regularizing their union by marriage, leaving her as the “other woman.” Attempts at mediation failed, prompting the formal complaint.
In his Comment, respondent judge vehemently denied all allegations, claiming the charges were fabricated and the evidence forged. The case was referred to an investigating judge for inquiry. The investigation revealed respondent failed to present any evidence to refute the charges, appearing only once, while complainant testified credibly and presented substantial evidence, including love letters from respondent. The investigating judge found sufficient basis for the charge and recommended a three-month suspension.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Salih Musa is administratively liable for Gross Immorality.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of Gross Immorality and is dismissed from service. The Court upheld the investigating judge’s factual findings and conclusion of guilt. Complainant’s testimony, though uncorroborated, was deemed credible and substantiated by documentary evidence, including love notes. Her determination to pursue the case despite personal risk and expense lent further credibility. Respondent’s bare denials and unsubstantiated claims of forgery could not overcome this positive evidence.
The Court, however, disagreed with the recommended penalty of a three-month suspension, imposing dismissal instead. Respondent’s conduct constituted a grave violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which demands the highest standards of morality from all members of the judiciary. His actions transgressed basic decency and exploited his position of authority and moral ascendancy as complainant’s immediate superior to pursue an illicit affair with a subordinate. This abuse of trust was aggravated by his subsequent refusal to rectify the wrong by marrying complainant, thereby compounding the injury. His behavior was deemed as reprehensible as that in prior cases where judges were dismissed for similar sexual misconduct towards subordinates. Such conduct rendered him unfit for judicial office. Accordingly, he was dismissed with forfeiture of all benefits and disqualification from future government employment.