A.M. No. RTJ-96-1351 - Vedana vs. Valencia

Complainant Sarah B. Vedana was the court interpreter in Branch 222 (Quezon City) of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), National Capital Judicial Region.
Respondent Judge Eudarlio B. Valencia was the presiding judge of the same court branch.
The parties were distant relatives; their maternal grandmothers were first cousins.

Around 2:00 p.m., before hearings, complainant went to respondent’s chamber to inform him that scheduled cases were ready.
Respondent directed complainant to come into his chamber.
While standing beside the respondent’s table, respondent held complainant’s hands. Initially, complainant did not react, recognizing their family relation.
Respondent then hugged complainant and attempted to kiss her on the lips; complainant evaded, and the kiss landed on her cheek.
Respondent also held complainant’s left breast. Complainant struggled, dropped her pen, then freed herself and hurriedly left the chamber.
No staff was present; complainant returned to courtroom to continue duties but requested co-employee Eduardo Lorenzo to assist in interpreting.
Complainant did not immediately disclose the incident but later confided in court stenographer Vife Legaspi during a cab ride to Shoemart Shopping Mall, appearing hysterical and crying.
She also called her friend and law school classmate Marife Opulencia who advised her to tell her parents.
Complainant returned to Dagupan City, told her parents, and her mother accompanied her back to Manila to confront respondent, who was not present due to a sports festival.
The complainant went on leave from May 10 to June 10, 1996, and subsequently requested detail to another branch, which was later approved.

On May 15, 1996, complainant filed a sworn letter charging respondent with gross misconduct and immoral acts.
Respondent denied all allegations, alleging the complaint was motivated by personal grudge due to his refusal to detail complainant closer to her school.
Respondent filed motions to lift his preventive suspension, arguing his right to due process and presumption of innocence.
The case was assigned to successive investigating justices due to recusals and inhibitions.
Investigating Justice Romeo A. Brawner conducted hearings, including testimonies of complainant, respondent, and their witnesses, compiling 2,432 pages of transcripts over eleven trial dates.
Evidence included affidavits of respondent’s staff who claimed no untoward incident was observed, but their testimony was overshadowed by complainant’s detailed and consistent account corroborated by witnesses.
Findings determined complainant’s version to be credible and established that respondent committed inappropriate acts against her.
Investigating Justice Brawner recommended a 60-day suspension without pay for respondent.

Whether respondent Judge Eudarlio B. Valencia committed gross misconduct, immoral acts, and conduct unbecoming an officer of the Judiciary by sexually harassing complainant Sarah B. Vedana, a court employee.