G.R. No. 188659 - Heirs of Ridad vs. Gregorio Araneta University Foundation

An amended administrative complaint was filed on October 6, 2008 by Dorothy Fe Mah-Arevalo, the Court Stenographer of RTC Palompon, Leyte, Branch 17, against Judge Celso L. Mantua of the same court.
The complaint charged the judge with numerous violations including disgraceful/immoral conduct, gross neglect of duty, grave misconduct, dishonesty, violation of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), gross violation of the Judicial Code of Conduct, abuse of authority, and gross ignorance of the law.

Respondent allegedly used his chamber in the Hall of Justice as his residential dwelling.
He was accused of frequently bringing his mistress into the court, with such actions corroborated by staff and a former utility worker, Dyndee NuAez.
It was charged that he used the court process server, Benjamin Pepito, as his personal driver.
The complaint further alleged that he delegated his judicial chores to his legal researcher, Atty. Elmer Mape, due to his personal vices interfering with his official duties.
In a criminal case under his jurisdiction, he was said to have proceeded to trial without ensuring the accused was assisted by counsel, allowed the private complainant to testify in open court, and extorted Php200,000.00 from the accused.
Additional accusations included his solicitation for gasoline, personal allowance, and other benefits from the local government, and his failure to rule cases within the mandated 90-day period due to suspicions of receiving financial incentives from litigants.

Judge Mantua denied the allegation of residing in the Hall of Justice by asserting that he had rented a vacant house nearby during his tenure at the RTC.
He refuted having a mistress, explaining that a frequent female visitor to his office was merely his caterer delivering food.
The judge maintained that his occasional request to accompany the process server was functional, linking it to the server’s schedule on trips between Palompon and Ormoc City.
He conceded that in a specific criminal case, trial proceeded without the accused being assisted by counsel; however, he justified it by alleging that the accused had violated the procedural requirement for postponement. He firmly denied any act of extortion.
Additionally, he clarified that he never solicited a gasoline allowance but acknowledged that, like other local officials, he received certain local government allowances.
He further asserted that by January 9, 2009, he had already been separated from service due to compulsory retirement.

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) referred the complaint for investigation, and an investigating justice was assigned.
In a report received on July 6, 2010, the investigating justice found Judge Mantua guilty of violating Canon 2 and Rule 2.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Evidence, including the consistent and spontaneous answers of the complainant and corroborative testimony from NuAez, established that the judge had been using his chamber as a residential abode and had engaged in an extramarital affair within those premises.
While the investigating justice exonerated him on the remaining charges due to insufficient evidence, the acts confirmed were deemed serious enough to warrant suspension or dismissal, if not for his retirement.

An OCA memorandum dated August 5, 2013, reaffirmed the findings and increased the recommended fine to Php40,000.00.
The memorandum found Judge Mantua guilty of immorality and the improper use of the Hall of Justice, thereby violating SC Administrative Circular No. 3-92 and A.M. No. 01-9-09-SC.
Given his compulsory retirement status, the respondent was penalized by financial fine rather than suspension or dismissal.

Whether Judge Mantua’s conduct of using the Hall of Justice as his residence violated SC Administrative Circular No. 3-92 and A.M. No. 01-9-09-SC.
Whether the respondent’s conduct, particularly his extramarital affair and public display thereof, constitutes immorality pursuant to the judicial standards.
Whether the defense arguments presented by Judge Mantua sufficiently negate the established facts regarding his misconduct.
Whether disciplinary measures, specifically the imposition of a fine, are appropriate in light of his compulsory retirement.