Title
Ansa vs. Musa
Case
A.M. No. SCC-00-5
Decision Date
Nov 29, 2000
A court stenographer accused Judge Salih Musa of gross immorality, alleging amorous advances and an affair. The Court found him guilty, dismissing him for violating judicial conduct and moral standards.
Font Size:

Case Digest (A.M. No. SCC-00-5)

Facts:

In a verified complaint dated December 27, 1996, Salama S. Ansa, a court stenographer assigned at the Shariaa Circuit Court, Buluan, Maguindanao, charged Judge Salih Musa with Gross Immorality. Complainant alleged that prior to her present assignment, she was under the supervision of respondent, who was then the Clerk of Court and at the same time an ULAMA. In June 1994, respondent made amorous advances towards her. Despite her initial resistance, she succumbed to his insistence, resulting in their trysts in hotels, lodges, and theaters. Their affair continued until respondent was appointed as Shariaa judge. Complainant sought to end the relationship but was appeased by respondent. She eventually filed the complaint, alleging that respondent had no intention of rectifying the situation he had put her in and that she was just going to be the "other woman." Respondent vehemently denied the charges, claiming that the accusations were the product of her sick mind and that the notes and letters were fabricated and forged.

Issue:

The primary issue is whether Judge Salih Musa is guilty of Gross Immorality, as alleged by complainant Salama S. Ansa, and whether his conduct violated the Code of Judicial Conduct. The complaint seeks to determine whether respondent’s actions, as a married man, were disgraceful and immoral, particularly in his amorous advances towards complainant, who was his subordinate.

Ruling:

The Court found Judge Salih Musa guilty of Gross Immorality. He was dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all benefits and with prejudice to re-employment in any other branch, instrumentality, or agency of the government, including government-owned and controlled corporations. The Court emphasized that respondent's conduct violated the Code of Judicial Conduct and failed to live up to the high moral standard expected of a member of the Judiciary.

Ratio:

The Court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to hold respondent liable for Gross Immorality. Complainant’s testimony, though uncorroborated, appeared credible and was supported by substantial evidence, including love letters and notes. Respondent’s bare denials and unproven allegations of forgery could not prevail over the positive evidence submitted by complainant. The Court noted that respondent’s conduct violated the norms of decency expected of every person and failed to meet the high moral standard expected of a member of the Judiciary. The Court also considered that respondent was the immediate superior of the complainant and took advantage of his position to prey on her innocence and weakness, further aggravating his offense. His conduct was deemed reprehensible and unworthy of the judicial robe and the place of honor reserved for the guardian of justice in a civilized community.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.