G.R. No. 188669 - People vs. Mendoza y Berizo

The administrative charge arose from a letter by then Director Santiago Y. Toledo of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).
The letter recommended the prosecution of Judge Francisco D. Villanueva and three co-respondents for illegal recruitment under RA 8042 and for white slave trade under the Revised Penal Code in relation to RA 7610.
Additional allegations included accusations of immorality, specifically that Marian Herrera was the judge’s live-in partner.
On the recommendation of Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo, the Court issued a Resolution dated June 8, 1999, suspending Judge Villanueva until further notice.

The investigation commenced on August 24, 1999, and continued until April 19, 2001.
Complainant’s evidence was supported by four witnesses:

Jobeth Diocales
Janet Ramas
Juvylyn Requilmen
NBI Supervising Agent Julma Dizon Dapilos (executive officer of the Anti Child Abuse Division)

Judge Francisco D. Villanueva (respondent himself)
Marlyn Sumadilla
Mrs. Violeta Jarra Villanueva (his wife)
Other individuals (Nitz Tao, Andres C. Torres-Yap, Felilu Amon Ying, Oscar Inocentes, and Justice Catalino R. Castaneda Jr.)

On January 19, 1999, three young women (Jobeth Diocales, Janet Ramas, and Juvylyn Requilmen) were brought by Marlyn Sumadilla and Joy Elardo from Tagum to Manila.
Upon arrival, they were met at the airport by Marian Herrera and her brother Paolo, who then transported them to the residence at No. 1 Hanna Street, Fil-Invest, Batasan, Quezon City—the house of Judge Villanueva and Marian Herrera.

At breakfast the following morning, the girls were introduced to Judge Villanueva by Marian Herrera.
During this introduction, he made remarks regarding the young women’s unsuitability for travel abroad (referring to Japan) and suggested they be made “Dance Instructors.”
Later on January 21, 1999, after a shopping trip, the judge took the girls first to Ihaw-Ihaw and subsequently to his condominium at Murphy, Socorro, Cubao, where the girls resided.
Specific testimony revealed that Judge Villanueva was seen sleeping in the same residence and later being massaged by one of the witnesses, actions that implied an impropriety.

On January 23, 1999, the three girls were taken by Marian Herrera and the judge to the Bodega Night Club, where they began working as guest relations officers (GROs) for a brief period.
After discontinuing their work due to the vulgarity exhibited by patrons, they were subsequently taken by Marian and Judge Villanueva to the KTV Night Club on January 26, 1999, to work for about a week.
The girls eventually ceased working at KTV Night Club after further inappropriate experiences, which also contributed to the narrative of the judge’s undue influence.

On February 11, 1999, following complaints of mistreatment and inappropriate conduct by customers, Jobeth Diocales and Janet Ramas were “rescued” by the NBI team from the condominium in Cubao.
Juvylyn Requilmen was similarly rescued from the Ihaw-Ihaw Balot-Balot Restaurant, an establishment also owned by Marian Herrera and Judge Villanueva.

The investigation was later referred to former Court of Appeals Justice Pedro A. Ramirez, acting as consultant to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).
The consultant’s report found that:

The testimony of the three young women was credible and untainted by any motive to falsify, outweighing Judge Villanueva’s denials.
The judge’s explanations were hollow, especially his claim of being merely a business adviser to Marian Herrera, as evidence showed that he had been seen in intimate settings with her.

The report additionally highlighted repetitive administrative lapses in the judge’s conduct:

Prior reprimands for failing to secure a written permission from the Supreme Court for engaging in business.
Previous findings of abuse of authority (with an accompanying fine) and serious misconduct/effectiveness violations under the Canons of Judicial Ethics resulting in suspension and fine.

These findings supported the view that even though the acts did not rise to the level of “gross” or “serious misconduct” directly connected with his official duties, they were sufficient to establish immorality and conduct unbecoming a judge.

Whether Judge Villanueva’s actions, both inside and outside the courtroom, have breached the ethical standards expected of a judicial officer.
Whether his conduct amounted to an appearance of impropriety, thereby undermining the integrity of the judiciary.

Whether the judge should be held administratively liable for facilitating the employment of underage individuals as GROs.
Whether his actions, including the establishment of an intimate relationship with Marian Herrera, constitute immorality and unbecoming conduct despite his denials.

Whether the acts committed by Judge Villanueva can be classified as gross or serious misconduct in relation to his official duties.
Whether a fine is an appropriate penalty given that the misconduct did not directly affect his judicial performance, especially since he had already retired.