Case Digest (G.R. No. 83329)
Facts:
Dr. Norbert L. Alfonso v. Judge Modesto C. Juanson, A.M. No. RTJ-92-904, December 07, 1993, the Supreme Court En Banc, Davide, Jr., J., writing for the Court.The complainant, Dr. Norbert L. Alfonso (physician), filed a sworn administrative complaint with the Supreme Court on 15 September 1992 charging respondent Judge Modesto C. Juanson, Presiding Judge, RTC Branch 30, Manila, with immorality and violation of the Code of Judicial Ethics for allegedly maintaining an illicit sexual relationship with complainant’s wife, Sol Dinglasan Alfonso. The complaint recited that the couple married on 10 December 1988 and had three children; it narrated telephone tips, purported love letters from Sol to the respondent, photocopies and originals delivered to the complainant’s father, and surveillance reports and photographs obtained by a hired private detective showing meetings of Sol and the respondent on 11 and 17 July 1992 at Unit 412-A Citihomes, Mandaluyong.
Respondent filed a Comment dated 21 December 1992 admitting acquaintance and professional/consultative communications with Sol but denying illicit sexual relations, denying that the letters were “love letters,” and explaining the Citihomes meetings as consultations while asserting his medical incapacity to engage in sexual intercourse (diabetes and prostatitis). He also produced witnesses (Cua Sen, Celestino Esteban, former Judge George Zari) to corroborate his version.
By resolution of 4 May 1993, the Court referred the case to Associate Justice Lourdes T. Jaguros of the Court of Appeals to investigate, report and recommend. Justice Jaguros conducted hearings on 17, 18, 21 and 29 June and 6, 8, 9 and 12 July 1993, received testimonial and documentary evidence (including Exhibits A–E: five letters; Exhibits F–G: surveillance reports and photographs; Pacific Bell telephone statements; immigration records), and on 30 September 1993 submitted a Report and Recommendation finding the respondent guilty of immorality and violation of judicial conduct and recommending dismissal from office. The Investigating Justice credited the complainant’s testimony, the letters, the surveillance photographs, and Sol’s alleged admission to the complainant that she had had sexual intercourse with the respondent.
The Supreme Court reviewed the record. It accepted that a special relationship existed between respondent and Sol before and around the time of her marriage, but held that there was no direct and competent evidence proving illicit sexual intercourse by the respondent after his judicial appointment; it treated Sol’s alleged confession as hearsay insofar as it would be used to prove acts against the respondent because the Investigating Justice had admitted it only...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was there substantial and competent evidence that respondent Judge Juanson engaged in illicit sexual intercourse with Sol after his appointment, such that he is administratively liable for immorality?
- Can evidence of immoral conduct that predates a judge’s appointment serve as a basis for administrative discipline for immorality?
- Did respondent violate the Canons of Judicial Ethics (appearance of impropriety) and neglect official duty by his conduct a...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)