Case Digest (A.M. No. MTJ-98-1162)
Facts:
Ana May M. Simbajon v. Judge Rogelio M. Esteban, A.M. No. MTJ-98-1162, promulgated September 11, 2000, the Supreme Court En Banc, Per Curiam. Complainant Ana May M. Simbajon filed a letter and sworn complaint on September 8, 1997 accusing respondent Judge Rogelio M. Esteban, presiding judge of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (Branch I, Cabanatuan City), of sexual harassment and grave misconduct for alleged incidents in his chambers on June 25, 1997 and August 5, 1997.Simbajon alleged that when she sought the judge’s signature on employment papers the judge propositioned her—saying she would be his “girlfriend” and that she would come daily for “a kiss”—and then kissed her without consent. She further alleged that on the August date the judge again declared her his girlfriend, embraced, kissed her all over the face and touched her right breast. Her account was supported by contemporaneous statements from co-employee Elizabeth Q. Malubay and later corroboration by other staff and by her husband’s affidavit recounting her upset demeanor after the incidents.
Respondent filed an Answer (Dec. 2, 1997) denying the allegations, offering contrary factual narrative (including that Simbajon had gratitude-buzzed his forehead), asserting the chamber door was open and that the accounts were false, and attacking witness credibility. He characterized his relations with staff as fatherly and pointed to his public service and affiliations.
On August 31, 1998 the Court referred the matter to Executive Judge Federico Fajardo Jr. of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 30, Cabanatuan City, for investigation, report and recommendation, and placed respondent under preventive suspension pending investigation. The investigating judge credited the complainant and her witnesses, discredited respondent and his witnesses, found that respondent took advantage of his position over a subordinate, and concluded there was sufficient evidence to create moral certainty that respondent committed the acts complained of; he recommended dismissal. The Office of the Court Administrator concurred with the investigative report and recommendation.
The case was resolve...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was there sufficient evidence to establish that Judge Rogelio M. Esteban committed sexual harassment and grave misconduct?
- If so, what disciplinary penalty is appropriate for the m...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)