A.M. No. MTJ-22-007 - Espejon vs. Lorredo

Case Summary (A.M. No. MTJ-22-007)

Petitioner / Respondent Roles

Complainants brought a verified administrative complaint alleging prejudgment, bias and partiality, and that Judge Lorredo allowed his religious beliefs and adverse impressions about homosexuality to influence his conduct of the preliminary conference. Judge Lorredo responded in a Comment denying prejudgment and characterizing his statements as attempts to guide parties toward settlement using Biblical references; he also asserted the TSN would corroborate his account.

Key Dates and Procedural Posture

Complaint filed: January 7, 2019. TSN excerpts reflect the October 22, 2018 preliminary conference. Judicial Integrity Board (JIB) recommended re-docketing the matter as a regular administrative case and found grave misconduct, recommending a fine of P40,000. The Supreme Court decision in this administrative matter was rendered March 9, 2022.

Applicable Law and Standards

The Court applied the 1987 Philippine Constitution as the governing constitutional framework (decision date post-1990), and relevant disciplinary and ethical instruments cited in the record: the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary (A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC, 2004), Canon provisions on Propriety (Canon 4), Equality (Canon 5), and Integrity (Canon 2); the Administrative Disciplinary Rules on Sexual Harassment (CSC Resolution No. 01-0940, May 21, 2001); Rule 140 of the Rules of Court (as amended by A.M. No. 21-03-17-SC) for classification and penalties of judicial disciplinary offenses; and applicable precedents cited in the rollo.

Factual Background

During a preliminary conference in an ejectment case, the presiding judge repeatedly questioned the two defendants about their relationship, directly invoked Biblical prohibitions and punishments regarding homosexuality, and linked alleged homosexual conduct and moral fault to the propriety of possession and the sanction of ejectment. The TSN contains multiple exchanges where the judge asked whether the parties were in a homosexual relationship, warned of divine punishment, and urged the defendants to vacate the property—remarks the complainants considered irrelevant, prejudicial, and humiliating.

Complainants’ Allegations and Motion to Inhibit

Complainants alleged that Judge Lorredo prejudged the ejectment case, demonstrated bias and partiality, and introduced irrelevant religious rhetoric and homophobic remarks into the proceedings. They filed a Motion for Voluntary Inhibition which the judge denied; subsequently, the judge rendered a decision adverse to complainants, which they appealed while pursuing the administrative complaint.

Judge’s Explanation and Defense

In his Comment Judge Lorredo denied prejudgment and maintained his references to Biblical passages were intended to warn and guide parties toward settlement and to explain legal principles (e.g., that possession by tolerance and refusal to vacate can ground ejectment). He asserted that one party had indicated the other might be homosexual and stated his practice of facilitating settlements using the Bible, claiming to have “settled 101 cases using the Bible.”

JIB Evaluation and Recommendation

The Judicial Integrity Board found that the judge had effectively prejudged the case by declaring the defendants were not owners and must vacate during a preliminary conference meant to foster settlement. The JIB also faulted the use of the Bible in deciding or steering cases and concluded the judge’s pronouncements on homosexuality were irrelevant and invasive of private matters. The JIB characterized the conduct as grave misconduct, recommending re-docketing as a regular administrative matter and a P40,000 fine.

Legal Issues before the Court

The sole issue presented to the Supreme Court was whether Judge Lorredo should be held administratively liable for his conduct during the preliminary conference and for related acts and statements alleged in the complaint.

Court’s Findings on Ethical Violations

The Court agreed that Judge Lorredo committed multiple violations of the New Code of Judicial Conduct and related standards: violations of Canon 4 (Propriety), including Sections 1 and 6; violations of Canon 5 (Equality), including Sections 1, 2 and 3; and violations of Canon 2 (Integrity), Sections 1 and 2. The Court also found the judge’s remarks constituted work-related sexual harassment under CSC Resolution No. 01-0940 (derogatory or degrading remarks relating to sexual orientation).

Characterization of Offenses and Rationale

While the Court concurred with the JIB that the judge’s conduct was improper and serious, it declined to characterize the offenses as gross misconduct. The Court explained the distinction: gross misconduct requires corruption, clear intent to violate law, or flagrant disregard of established rules with wrongful intention, elements not established here. Instead, the Court classified the judge’s conduct as simple misconduct (overbearing demeanor and unwarranted acts to force settlement), conduct unbecoming a judge (derogatory, demeaning language), and work-related sexual harassment (derogatory remarks about sexual orientation).

Assessment of Alleged Partiality

The Court examined whether there was proof of actual partiality favoring the plaintiffs and found insufficient extrinsic evidence to sustain a charge of bias that would warrant disqualification. The judge’s swift conclusions were largely anchored to defendants’ admissions about non-ownership and possession by tolerance; however, the judge’s conduct sufficiently created an appearance of partiality and impaired confidence in impartiality, which itself is harmful to the judiciary.

Precedential and Comparative Citations Considered

The Court re

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. MTJ-22-007)

Procedural Background and Parties

Complainants: Marcelino Espejon (also spelled Marcelino Esperon in parts of the rollo) and Erickson Cabonita (also appears as Erickson Tajanlangit and as "Ericson" in some parts).
Respondent: Hon. Jorge Emmanuel M. Lorredo, Presiding Judge, Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Manila, Branch 26.
Administrative complaint filed by complainants in a verified Complaint dated January 7, 2019 (Rollo, pp. 2-20).
Complaint arose from Judge Lorredo's conduct during the preliminary conference in Civil Case No. M-MNL-18-08450-SC (also cited in some parts as Civil Case No. M-MNL-18-10066-SC) — an unlawful detainer action filed by Myrna Alcantara (also referenced as Myrna Neantana) et al. against the complainants.
Complainants alleged prejudgment, bias and partiality, and that the judge’s conduct was heavily influenced by his religious beliefs and impressions about homosexuality.
Complainants filed a Motion for Voluntary Inhibition which Judge Lorredo denied; a Decision on the ejectment case unfavorable to complainants was later issued and appealed (Rollo, pp. 38-50).
Complainants filed administrative charges invoking violations of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary (A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC) — specifically Rule 1.02, Canon 1; Sections 1, 4 and 5 of Canon 3; and Sections 1 and 2 of Canon 5 (Rollo, pp. 8-9).

Allegations in the Complaint

Complainants alleged that during the preliminary conference Judge Lorredo:
- Made remarks evidencing prejudgment that they were not owners of the subject property and must vacate.
- Exhibited obvious bias and partiality against them, including bias related to their alleged sexual orientation.
- Invoked and applied his religious beliefs and Biblical passages in a way irrelevant to the legal issues in the ejectment case, thereby impairing impartiality.
As a result of the preliminary conference conduct, complainants moved for the judge’s inhibition, which was denied (Rollo, pp. 62-64; pp. 38-46).

Respondent Judge’s Comment and Explanation

In his Comment (Rollo, pp. 52-61), Judge Lorredo:
- Denied prejudging the case or expressing that complainants were in a homosexual relationship; maintained his intent was to guide parties toward settlement using the Bible as a moral reference.
- Stated that he had "settled 101 cases using the Bible" and that he merely warned complainants about God’s punishment for those who violate His commandments (Rollo, pp. 52-53).
- Explained that his remarks were based on complainants’ own admissions that possession of the property was tolerated by the landlord, and on the legal rule that tolerance plus demand to vacate can ground ejectment (Rollo, p. 54).
- Asserted that the transcript of stenographic notes (TSN) would show one complainant pointed to the other as homosexual and that his references to homosexuality were responsive to that; he denied stating that complainants were in a relationship (Rollo, pp. 53-56).
- Expressed views in his Comment that, content-wise, being "a homosexual pervert" might be a reason for punishment by God and that squatters may be punished for sins of themselves or ancestors (Rollo, pp. 56-57).

Transcript Excerpts and Nature of Judicial Remarks

The TSN of the preliminary conference contains repeated, direct questioning and statements by Judge Lorredo concerning complainants’ living arrangement and suspected homosexual conduct, including:
- Extensive badgering questions: "Wala kayo relationship na yung bawal sa Bible? Homosexual relationship? Wala bang bading sa inyong dalawa?" and repeated "Bading ka?" directed at the parties (TSN, October 22, 2018, pp. 8-11; rollo, pp. 28-31).
- Remarks linking alleged homosexual conduct to divine punishment and connecting that moralized view to the right of the landlord to the property: "Thou shall not steal... May parusa yan" and reading Biblical passages (TSN excerpts at multiple pages; Rollo, pp. 26-35).
- Statements showing an overbearing persistence to obtain an amicable settlement: pressing "Kailan kayo aalis?" and implying the defendants were delaying and should leave quietly (TSN excerpts, Rollo, pp. 25-26; pp. 34-35).
- Even co-judges and court staff were the subject of pejorative observations invoking religiosity and moral judgment (Rollo, p. 29).

Judicial Integrity Board’s (JIB) Evaluation and Recommendation

The JIB found that Judge Lorredo:
- Declared outright that complainants were not owners and must vacate during a preliminary conference where he should have encouraged settlement but not prejudged merits (Rollo, pp. 62-74).
- Inappropriately used the Bible to decide or influence cases, failing to insulate his judicial role from personal religious beliefs (Rollo, pp. 68-70).
- Made irrelevant remarks about homosexuality that intruded on complainants’ privacy and dignity and had no place in a preliminary conference (Rollo, pp. 68-70).
The JIB concluded these acts amounted to grave misconduct constituting a flagrant disregard of Canon 3’s impartiality duty, and recommended:
- Re-docketing the complaint as a regular administrative matter and finding Judge Lorredo administratively liable for grave misconduct.
- Imposing a fine of P40,000.00, issuing a stern warning, and advising him to study how to conduct preliminary conferences (Rollo, pp. 70-73).

Issue Before the Supreme Court

The sole issue the Court addressed was whether Judge Jorge Emmanuel M. Lorredo should be held administratively liable for his conduct during the preliminary conference and related comments, and if so, the appropriate disposition.

Legal Standards and Relevant Provisions Cited

New Code of Judicial Conduct (A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC) provisions invoked by the complainants and discussed by the Court:
- Canon 2 (Integrity) — Sections 1 and 2: Judges must ensure conduct above reproach and reinforce faith in the judiciary; justice must be both done and seen to be done.
- Canon 4 (Propriety) — Sections 1 and 6: Judges must avoid impropriety and its appearance; while entitled to freedom of belief, they must preserve dignity of office and impartiality.
- Canon 5 (Equality) — Sections 1, 2 and 3: Judges must be aware of diversity, must not manifest bias or prejudice on irrelevant grounds (including sexual orientation), and must treat all persons without differentiation on immaterial grounds.
- Canon 3 (Impartiality) referenced re: duties to be impartial during proceedings.
Civil Service Commission (CSC) Resolution No. 01-0940 (Administrative Disciplinary Rules on Sexual Harassment Cases, May 21, 2001):
- Section 3(a)(3), Rule III: Work-related sexual harassment includes acts that reasonably cause discrimination, insecurity, discomfort, offense or humiliation to a complainant who may be a ward of the person complained of.
- Section 53(B)(3), Rule X: Less grave offense classification for "derogatory or degrading remarks or innuendoes directed toward the members of one sex, or one's sexual orientation."
- Penalty range for less grave offense: fine or suspension of not less than 30 days and not exceeding 6 months for first offense (cited Rule XI Sec. 56(B) for penalties).
Rule 140 of the Rules of Court (as amended by A.M. No. 21-03-17-SC) — classifications and penalties:
- Simple misconduct (less serious charge): suspension without pay for 1–3 months or fine of P35,000.00–P100,000.00.
- Conduct unbecoming (light charge): fine P1,000.00–P35,000.00 and/or censure, reprimand, admonition