Facts:

The case involves Geoffrey Beckett (the complainant) and Judge Olegario R. Sarmiento, Jr. (the respondent), who served as a judge in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 24, Cebu City. The events leading to this case began with the marriage of Geoffrey Beckett, an Australian national, to Eltesa Densing Beckett, a Filipina, which produced a son, Geoffrey Beckett, Jr., born on June 29, 2001. Their marriage was tumultuous, leading to legal disputes, including a case filed by Eltesa against Geoffrey for violation of the Violence Against Women and Children Act (RA 7610) and a suit for the declaration of nullity of their marriage. These cases were presided over by Judge Sarmiento. In 2006, a compromise agreement was reached, granting Geoffrey full and permanent custody of Geoffrey Jr., with visitation rights for Eltesa. Following this, Geoffrey moved to Australia with his son, maintaining annual visits to Eltesa in Cebu.

In 2010, during one of these visits, Geoffrey allowed Geoffrey ...

Facts:

Background of the Case
Geoffrey Beckett, an Australian national, was previously married to Eltesa Densing Beckett, a Filipina. Their union produced one child, Geoffrey Beckett, Jr., born on June 29, 2001. The marriage was troubled, leading to their eventual separation and multiple legal disputes.

Legal Disputes Between the Parents
In 2006, Eltesa filed a case against Beckett for violation of Republic Act No. (RA) 7610 (Violence against Women and Children Act) and a petition for the nullity of their marriage (Civil Case No. CEB-32254). Beckett, in turn, filed criminal charges against Eltesa, including adultery. Both cases were assigned to Judge Olegario R. Sarmiento, Jr.

Compromise Agreement
On September 25, 2006, Judge Sarmiento approved a compromise agreement between the parties. The agreement included the dismissal of all pending cases and granted Beckett full and permanent custody of Geoffrey, Jr., subject to Eltesa’s visitation rights. Beckett took Geoffrey, Jr. to Australia and, despite obtaining a divorce in 2007, continued yearly visits to Cebu.

Breakdown of the Agreement
In 2010, Beckett consented to let Geoffrey, Jr. stay with Eltesa after Christmas but requested his return by January 9, 2011. Eltesa failed to return the child, prompting Beckett to file a petition for violation of RA 7610 (Sp. Proc. No. 18182-CEB) and apply for a writ of habeas corpus.

Court Proceedings and Alleged Misconduct
During a March 1, 2011 hearing, Geoffrey, Jr. exhibited distress and refused to return to Beckett. Judge Sarmiento ordered Eltesa to return the child but later granted her provisional custody during a March 15, 2011 hearing, pending a social case study by the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD). Beckett alleged that Judge Sarmiento displayed partiality by allowing Eltesa’s friend into his chambers, conversing with Eltesa in Cebuano, and adjourning a hearing without waiting for Beckett’s return from a private conference. Beckett also accused the judge of failing to resolve his motion for reconsideration promptly.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Custody and the Best Interest of the Child
   In custody disputes, the paramount consideration is the welfare and best interest of the child. Custody arrangements are not permanent and can be revisited if circumstances change.

2. Preference of the Child
   Under the Family Code, a child over 7 years old has the right to choose which parent to live with, provided the chosen parent is fit. Geoffrey, Jr.’s preference to stay with his mother was supported by his expressed fears and negative experiences with his father.

3. Judicial Discretion
   Judges have the discretion to prioritize the child’s welfare over procedural rules or previous agreements. Judge Sarmiento’s decision to grant provisional custody was in line with this principle.

4. Presumption of Regularity
   Administrative charges against judges require substantial evidence. Mere allegations of partiality or misconduct, without proof, are insufficient to overcome the presumption of regularity in the performance of judicial duties.