A.M. No. 534-CFI - Nocum vs. Fortun

Lydia S. Nocum, a 32-year-old housekeeper from Pagadian City, filed an administrative complaint against Judge Willelmo C. Fortun for alleged immoral conduct.
The complaint arose from an incident wherein, during her application for a court stitcher position, the judge purportedly solicited and subsequently engaged in sexual intercourse with her against her will.

The complainant stated that while waiting for an appointment confirmation, Judge Fortun called her to his residence in Balangasan, Pagadian City under the pretext of needing her appointment documents.
During the meeting, after isolating her with the bailiff Modesto Radaza’s assistance, the judge allegedly coerced her by assuring her employment only if she submitted to his sexual advances, resulting in an alleged rape incident on a Sunday afternoon in February 1972.

The complaint, initiated by a letter dated September 11, 1973, was referred to the Supreme Court and subsequently to Justice Conrado M. Vasquez of the Court of Appeals for investigation.
A series of orders and reschedulings followed, including:

Initial scheduling of investigation hearings in Manila (set for April 1974) with requests by both parties for venue changes, particularly from the complainant who preferred Pagadian City.
Subsequent postponements and orders allowing the parties to comment on venue alternatives and procedural motions, such as the request for taking depositions due to financial hardship.
The investigative process was marred by the complainant’s non-appearance and failure to respond to the orders, while the respondent moved for the dismissal citing lack of interest by the complainant.

The encounter in February 1972 was limited to a reiteration of the rejection of her application, as the position was already allocated to another recommended candidate.
The more lurid allegations as presented in the affidavit-complaint were fabrications designed to besmirch his honor and discredit his judicial integrity.

He further detailed his long-standing service record and consistent adherence to judicial duties, noting that the delay in complaint filing and the inconsistencies in the complainant’s narrative rendered the charge implausible.

The investigation revealed significant delays and procedural noncompliance by the complainant, including:

Failure to appear before the Investigator despite numerous notices, telegrams, and letters.
Persistent silence and lack of follow-up, even after multiple orders demanding her comment on the respondent’s motions to dismiss.

In light of these issues, the Investigator recommended that the case be dismissed due to the complainant’s failure to prosecute the complaint effectively over an extended period, thereby prejudicing both the public service and the respondent’s reputation.

Whether the allegations of sexual misconduct and immorality against Judge Fortun, as narrated by the complainant, are supported by credible evidence.
The significance of the long delay in filing the complaint and the inconsistencies within the complainant’s narration.

Whether the complainant’s non-appearance and failure to respond to procedural orders justify the dismissal of the complaint.
The impact of prolonged inaction on the integrity of the administrative process and the fair treatment of the respondent.