SC upholds dismissal of Baguio judge; four other judges fined

The Supreme Court (SC) upheld with finality yesterday its June 26 ruling dismissing a Baguio City regional trial court (RTC) judge from the service for immorality.

The tribunal, meanwhile, slapped four other Baguio City judges with fines ranging from P2,000 to P30,000 for gambling inside their chambers and for corruption.

In a one-page en banc resolution, the SC said RTC Judge Clarence Villanueva failed to raise "substantial matters" as he sought to reverse the 55-page per curiam en banc decision signed by the 15 SC justices finding him guilty of immorality for having a mistress.

Meanwhile, Baguio City Judges Abraham Borreta, Amado Caguioa, and Antonio Esteves were ordered to pay a fine of P2,000 each and warned against gambling and drinking in court premises during office hours.

On the other hand, Judge Antonio Reyes was fined P30,000 and similarly warned against accepting any favor during the pendency of any case.

The sanction against Reyes stemmed from a complaint filed by Ramon Ilusorio, a complainant against the Baguio Country Club Corp.

The SC also ordered Caguioa to pay another P10,000 fine for not strictly adhering to SC Circular no. 12 dated Oct. 12, 1986 and admonished him to stop the practice of allowing court stenographers and interpreters to take part in ex-parte hearings.

The SC’s dismissal of Villanueva stemmed from a complaint for immorality filed by Judge Ruben Ayson, who claimed that Villanueva has a daughter with his mistress, Emy Tumaneng.

"The Code of Judicial Ethics mandates that the conduct of a judge must be free of a whiff of impropriety not only with respect to his discharge of judicial duties, but also to his behavior outside his sala and as a private individual," the SC said.

It added: "A judge’s official life cannot simply be detached from his personal existence. His public as well as his private life must be above suspicion."

The SC said the charge of immorality proven against Villanueva "demonstrates his unfitness to remain in office and continue to discharge the functions of a judge."

"Rule 140 of the rules of court classifies immorality as a serious offense. It is punishable by dismissal from the service with accessory penalties… There is no reason for not meting out the severest form of disciplinary sanction, specially since the offense was committed in the very city where the respondent judge holds office," it added.

The SC said Villanueva seemed to have made little attempt to be discreet about his liaison with a woman not his wife.