A.M. No. MTJ-98-1168 - Liwanag vs. Lustre

Complainant Lualhati M. Liwanag filed a letter on September 19, 1995, praying for the dismissal of Judge Paterno H. Lustre for “gross immorality and grave misconduct unbecoming of his profession.”
Accompanying the letter was a detailed sworn statement in which the complainant recounted a series of incidents starting before July 1994, connected to pending B.P. 22 cases involving her husband, Jose B. Zafra, against several accused for issuing bounced checks amounting to approximately P3.5 million.

The complainant’s husband’s case was initially assigned to Judge Lustre, who allegedly postponed hearings repeatedly.
On November 17, 1994, the complainant visited the judge’s chamber to inquire about the case schedule; the judge promised to arrange hearings and to meet after the December 15, 1994, hearing.

On December 16, 1994, at approximately 7:00 A.M., the complainant met Judge Lustre again—he prepared an order for the accused, during which he touched her shoulder down to her breast and later indicated his availability on specific days for further meetings.
The complainant was led to believe that compliance with his implied wishes would expedite the case.

On March 6, 1995, during another meeting at the judge’s chamber, following his cancellation of several hearings, he took the complainant on a ride in his white Toyota, during which he further molested her by kissing and caressing her while intimating that her compliance was essential for the smooth prosecution of the case.
On March 13, 1995, when called to his office, the judge not only kissed and caressed the complainant but also overtly exposed himself and ordered her to masturbate him, with evident physical signs (a slightly bloody discharge) noted.
Additional meetings occurred on June 15–16, 1995 and June 23, 1995, where similar acts—ranging from unwanted touching and kissing to demands for performing oral sex (“fellatio”)—were alleged. In these encounters, the complainant repeatedly cited fear of case repercussions and financial desperation as reasons for her compliance, despite her evident repulsion.

The complainant submitted 11 photographs allegedly showing them together in various settings, including instances at the Riverview Resort in Calamba, Laguna.
A receipt from the said resort (dated June 23, 1995) and two transcripts of telephone conversations were also filed.

Judge Lustre denied all allegations, dismissing them as “vile products” of a “malicious and prejudiced mind.”
He claimed that the complainant and her common-law husband initiated the complaint after his refusal to accept a five-percent “reward” from the disputed P3.5 million settlement.
He provided affidavits attesting to his usual arrival time (7:45 A.M.), his moral uprightness, and documented his health condition (coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation, and diabetes mellitus) to support his claim that he was physically incapable of engaging in the alleged acts.

A resolution dated January 17, 1996, referred the matter to Judge Norberto Geraldez of the RTC in Calamba, Laguna, for investigation.
Judge Geraldez, in his report dated October 6, 1997, recommended dismissal of the complaint on the basis that the complainant failed to establish her case beyond reasonable doubt.
In contrast, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) in its Memorandum dated September 1, 1998, found the complainant’s allegations credible and recommended that the case be docketed as an administrative complaint, sanctioning the judge severely.

Respondent’s inconsistencies regarding timeline and location of alleged events (particularly the origin of the photographs) were noted by both parties.
The complainant’s narrative evolved into a comprehensive allegation of repeated abuse and manipulation by Judge Lustre and of judicial delay tactics that seemingly facilitated his misconduct.
Despite the lack of visual evidence capturing the sexual acts (understandable given the nature of the acts), the physical evidence, documentary submissions, and the complainant’s detailed sworn account formed the basis of her case.

Whether the evidence presented – including the complainant’s sworn statement, photographs, receipts, and phone transcripts – was sufficiently credible to support the allegations of sexual misconduct and abuse of power by Judge Lustre.

Whether the repeated rescheduling of the hearings for the B.P. 22 cases was used deliberately by Judge Lustre to create opportunities for his misconduct.
Whether the judge’s actions constituted a clear violation of the high standards of judicial conduct demanded of members of the judiciary.

Whether the evidence on record met the “substantial evidence” standard, wherein proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required for administrative cases, as provided under Rule 133 of the Revised Rules of Evidence.

The extent to which the judge’s actions, if proven, undermined public confidence in the judiciary and injured the administration of justice.

The determination of whether imposing a fine (and barring future public service employment) was an adequate sanction, particularly in light of the respondent’s retirement status and potential collateral effects on his family.