A.M. No. MTJ-91-565 - Junio vs. Rivera Jr.

The case involves Judge Pedro C. Rivera, Jr., who was previously dismissed from the service for gross misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interests of the Judiciary.
The specific act for which he was dismissed was the incident of kissing his boarder’s daughter while he was intoxicated during his birthday party.
His misconduct was considered severe given the high standards expected from a member of the Judiciary.

The Administrative Resolution dated August 30, 1993, found Judge Rivera guilty and imposed the following penalties:

Dismissal from the service with prejudice to any future re-employment in any part of the government service, including government-owned or controlled corporations.
Forfeiture of all retirement benefits and privileges (except for the monetary equivalent of accrued earned leave credits).
Immediate cessation from rendering any judicial orders or decisions upon receipt of the resolution.

The resolution underscored the necessity for judicial officers to adhere strictly to the Code of Judicial Conduct, both in official duties and in personal life, highlighting the inherent public scrutiny of a judge’s conduct.

On November 17, 2004, Judge Rivera sent a letter to the Court, acknowledging his misconduct and expressing acceptance of the verdict.

He stated that he did not file a motion for reconsideration because he accepted the imposed penalty as just recompense for his actions.
In the same letter, he requested reconsideration for humanitarian reasons:

He sought the monetary benefits corresponding to his long years of government service.

ii. He pleaded to be allowed to work as a consultant in any government agency or government-owned/controlled corporation.

His current poor health conditions which include cataract, prostatic enlargement, postural vertigo, hypertension, and arthritis.
His dire financial situation, which compelled him to seek any available opportunity to earn a living despite accepting his dismissal.
His long service of more than thirty-five (35) years, wherein he spent four (4) years in the Judiciary and this incident was noted as his first administrative offense.

His long years of government service and the fact that the administrative offense was his first.
Evidences of sincere repentance and acknowledgment of his wrongdoing.
The considerable time lapse (more than ten years) since his dismissal, which, along with his current debility, contributed to his submission for judicial clemency.
Detailed presentation of his deteriorating physical condition and financial hardships, backed by medical certificates and other evidentiary documents.

The resolution discussed the high ethical and professional standards required of judges.
It was emphasized that a judge must maintain a conduct that is above reproach both within and outside the courtroom to retain the public’s trust.
However, while judges are not expected to be perfect, there is a compelling need for them to show vigilant adherence to ethical norms.

Whether judicial clemency can be granted to a judge who has been dismissed for gross misconduct based on subsequent remedial actions and humanitarian considerations.

Consideration of the balance between upholding strict judicial standards and recognizing the personal and financial hardships encountered by the respondent.
Evaluation of whether his long years of government service and sincere repentance can mitigate the gravity of his past misconduct.

Whether the imposition of penalties, particularly the prohibition on re-employment in the government and the forfeiture of retirement benefits, can be relaxed in view of the mitigating circumstances.

Analysis of the appropriateness of completely barring judicial re-employment given the respondent’s current physical and financial condition.
Consideration of humanitarian principles as a guide in reexamining disciplinary measures that affect a judge’s post-dismissal livelihood.

The extent to which the judiciary should exercise judicial clemency in instances where the misconduct occurred many years prior, and subsequent personal rehabilitation is evident.

The impact of time elapsed since the offense (over ten years) in re-assessing the punishment.
The implications of mitigating factors such as health deterioration and financial crisis in the overall equitable administration of justice.