Asto. Adm. No. 743 - Aguirre vs. Ramos

Complainants, Mrs. Rotilla A. Marcos and her children Joshua and Hazel Faith Marcos, filed a complaint against Judge Ferdinand J. Marcos of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Cebu City.
The complaint alleged that since his appointment, the judge failed to provide sufficient financial support to his family by withholding his salary checks and only giving minimal amounts for their education and sustenance.
It was further alleged that the judge misrepresented the amount he received, claiming he was paid merely a small remuneration when he was in fact receiving additional allowances, bonuses, and other benefits.
The complainants contended that Judge Marcos’s financial irregularities and alleged extra-remuneration benefited a mistress, thereby compromising his duties as a judge.

A hand-written letter dated December 9, 1996 was submitted, detailing the financial discrepancies and alleging that the judge’s family had never seen his full remuneration.
In his comment, filed on May 15, 1997, Judge Marcos denied the failure to support his family and claimed that he had been giving his wife an adequate monthly sum.
Judge Marcos explained that the loan incurred with a community cooperative was contracted during his early months on the bench, and he maintained that no private debts existed from his previous practice.
The complaint also raised the issue of a possible extramarital relationship, with the complainants requesting that all remuneration due him from the Supreme Court be diverted to his wife to prevent his alleged mistress from benefiting.

In August 2000, Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. observed Judge Marcos accompanied by a woman identified as his mistress—Maydelane (Mae) Tacaldo—during a fun run sponsored by the Philippine Judges Association.
During a confrontation with the Chief Justice, Judge Marcos admitted that he had been living with Mae Tacaldo for three years and that he was already separated from his wife.
The Chief Justice recommended that the case be referred to the Office of the Court Administrator for further investigation and that Judge Marcos be suspended pending resolution.
Following the suspension effective August 15, 2000, the case was investigated further by Justice Romulo S. Quimbo, Consultant, Office of the Court Administrator.

A plethora of documentary evidence was introduced during the trial—including, but not limited to, bank statements, telegrams, letters, affidavits, insurance documents, and vehicle registration documents (exhibits “A” through “LL”).
Evidence detailed discrepancies in addresses (e.g., an Islacom Statement of Account addressed to Judge Marcos at an address later identified as that of Mae Tacaldo instead of the conjugal dwelling).
Numerous documents linked Judge Marcos to the acquisition and registration of a Toyota Revo in joint ownership with Mae Tacaldo, including chattel mortgage documents and deeds of sale.
Testimonies of various witnesses (such as Judge Meinrado Paredes, employees from the Land Transportation Office, and representatives from insurance and financing companies) further corroborated the existence of a personal and financial relationship between the judge and Tacaldo.
The complainant provided additional evidence regarding unusual expenditures (dining expenses, jewelry purchases, and grocery bills) that did not align with the family’s known lifestyle and which suggested diversion of funds.

The marriage between Judge Marcos and Mrs. Rotilla A. Marcos was celebrated on December 31, 1971, and produced two children.
Initially, after his appointment to the judiciary, a change in the judge’s conduct was noted by his wife, including a reduction in marital intimacy and separate living arrangements.
The financial support provided by Judge Marcos was claimed to have diminished significantly, prompting his wife to file the complaint, which also cited threats and intimidating behavior when she confronted him about the irregularities.

Whether Judge Ferdinand J. Marcos failed to provide adequate financial support to his wife and children despite his apparent access to substantial remunerative benefits as a judge.
Whether the multitude of documentary and testimonial evidence sufficiently established that Judge Marcos maintained a clandestine, ongoing illicit relationship with Mae Tacaldo, thereby compromising his integrity.
Whether the personal misconduct and the breach of judicial ethical standards, as evidenced by his extramarital relationship and the misappropriation of his official remunerations, justify his dismissal from the judiciary.