Case Summary (A.M. No. MTJ-22-007)
Petitioner and Respondent
Petitioner: Marcelino Espejon and Erickson Cabonita
Respondent: Judge Jorge Emmanuel M. Lorredo
Key Dates
• October 22, 2018 – Preliminary conference stenographic notes (TSN).
• January 7, 2019 – Filing of the administrative complaint.
• March 9, 2022 – Supreme Court decision.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Constitution – Judicial independence and impartiality.
• New Code of Judicial Conduct (A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC, 2004) – Canons 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.
• Rule 140, Revised Rules of Court (as amended by A.M. No. 21-03-17-SC).
• CSC Resolution No. 01-0940 (2001) – Administrative Disciplinary Rules on Sexual Harassment.
Case Background
Complainants filed a verified complaint alleging that during the preliminary conference in their ejectment case, Judge Lorredo prejudged their rights, manifested bias based on their alleged sexual orientation, and interjected his personal religious beliefs—specifically Biblical passages—into court proceedings. They moved for his inhibition on grounds of bias, which the judge denied, and appealed his adverse decision in the underlying ejectment case.
Allegations
• Prejudgment of the ejectment case by declaring complainants non-owners and ordering them to vacate.
• Irrelevant and derogatory remarks about homosexuality, invoking Biblical condemnations.
• Overbearing conduct to force an amicable settlement.
Respondent’s Defense
Judge Lorredo denied any prejudgment or bias, explaining that he merely encouraged settlement using moral guidance from the Bible, which he had used in over 100 prior settlements. He asserted that his admonitions were corrective warnings about “stealing” and God’s punishment for homosexual conduct, based on complainants’ own admissions in court.
Judicial Integrity Board’s Findings and Recommendation
The Judicial Integrity Board (JIB) concluded that:
- Reserving a judgment on the merits and declaring complainants non-owners at a preliminary conference amounted to prejudgment and violated Canon 3 (impartiality).
- Invoking his religious beliefs contravened Canon 4 (propriety) by failing to insulate personal faith from judicial duties.
- Homophobic remarks breached Canon 5 (equality) by manifesting bias on irrelevant grounds.
- Such conduct constituted grave misconduct.
Recommendation: Re-docket as a regular administrative case and fine Judge Lorredo ₱40,000.
Issue
Whether Judge Lorredo is administratively liable and, if so, the appropriate degree of misconduct and penalty.
Court’s Analysis
- Constitutional and Ethical Framework
– Under the 1987 Constitution, judges must decide impartially and uphold the rule of law. The New Code of Judicial Conduct prescribes that judges avoid impropriety (Canon 4) and prejudice (Canon 5) and maintain integrity in conduct (Canon 2). - Prejudgment vs. Opinions in the Course of Proceedings
– While opinions formed from evidence in court do not establish bias, overt declarations of ownership rights at a settlement conference exceed permissible guidance and risk unfair influence. - Religious Beliefs and Judicial Duty
– Although judges retain freedom of belief (Canon 4, Section 6), expressing religious condemnation of litigants’ private conduct undermines the appearance of impartiality and interferes with the administration of justice (Concerned Trial Lawyers v. Veneracion). - Sexual Harassment
– Homophobic slurs and innuendoes constitute work-related sexual harassment under CSC Resolution No. 01-0940.
Violations Found
• Simple Misconduct – Overbearing demeanor, unwarranted attempts to force settlement, imp
Case Syllabus (A.M. No. MTJ-22-007)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- Complainants: Marcelino Espejon and Erickson Cabonita
- Respondent: Judge Jorge Emmanuel M. Lorredo, Presiding Judge, MeTC Manila Branch 26
- Underlying civil case: Unlawful detainer, Civil Case No. M-MNL-18-08450-SC, filed by Myrna Alcantara et al. against Espejon and Cabonita
- Administrative complaint docketed as A.M. No. MTJ-22-007 (formerly OCA IPI No. 19-3026-MTJ), filed January 7, 2019
Facts and Allegations
- During the preliminary conference, Judge Lorredo allegedly:
- Prejudged the ejectment case by declaring outright that complainants are not owners and must vacate
- Made repeated references to sexual orientation, asking if complainants were “bading” or in a homosexual relationship
- Invoked Biblical passages to warn of God’s punishment for homosexuality and for “stealing” landlord’s property rights
- Pressured complainants to state when they would vacate and admonished them in religious terms
- Complainants filed a Motion for Voluntary Inhibition which was denied, and subsequently appealed the unfavorable decision
Judge Lorredo’s Defense
- Denied prejudgment, bias or partiality based on sexual orientation
- As a Christian, asserted he uses the Bible to guide parties toward settlement, having settled 101 cases with this method
- Claimed stenographic notes would show:
- Warnings were about God’s punishment for theft of landlord’s enjoyment rights
- Complaint of homosexuality was raised by one complainant, not by him
Judicial Integrity Board Evaluation and Recommendation
- Found that during the preliminary conference Judge Lorredo:
- Virtually prejudged the merits by directing parties to vacate
- Injected religious beliefs and homophobic remarks irrelevant to the case
- Violated Rule 1.02, Canon 1; Sections 1, 4