Title
Liwanag vs. Lustre
Case
A.M. No. MTJ-98-1168
Decision Date
Apr 21, 1999
Judge Lustre accused of sexual misconduct by complainant Liwanag; Supreme Court found him guilty of gross misconduct, imposed a fine, and barred future government employment.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-27152)

Procedural Background

The complaint was filed on September 19, 1995, accompanied by a sworn statement detailing alleged sexual misconduct by Judge Lustre. The chronology of events includes various hearings that the complainant claims were manipulated by Judge Lustre to delay the proceedings, resulting in a series of personal encounters that Liwanag asserts were not consensual.

Allegations of Misconduct

Liwanag's allegations detail instances of inappropriate conduct by Judge Lustre, including unwanted touching and demands for sexual acts under the threat of adverse repercussions for her legal case. Throughout the documented encounters, she claims that Judge Lustre leveraged his position to coerce her into sexual activity, citing examples of scheduled meetings that turned into occasions for sexual misconduct.

Respondent's Defense

Judge Lustre denied the allegations, attributing them to Liwanag's supposed malice stemming from his refusal to expedite the B.P. 22 cases in favor of her husband. He claimed that he could not have engaged in the alleged immoral acts due to health conditions associated with his age and medical issues. Various affidavits and certifications were presented by Lustre to establish his character and refute the claims made against him, including an assertion that he could not have participated in sexual acts due to his physical ailments.

Investigation and Findings

The investigation into the allegations involved a referral to Judge Norberto Geraldez for an objective inquiry, which ultimately recommended the dismissal of the complaint, citing a lack of evidence to support Liwanag’s claims. This recommendation was met with dissent from the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), which found the allegations credible and called for severe consequences against Lustre.

Standards for Administrative Cases

The Court found that the standard of proof in administrative cases is based on substantial evidence rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This distinction is critical in assessing Liwanag’s claims, which the Court ultimately deemed sufficiently credible to warrant action against Lustre.

Evaluating the Evidence

The photographs submitted by Liwanag, taken during her encounters with Judge Lustre, were scrutinized. While these did not overtly depict inappropriate conduct, they raised questions regarding the nature of their relationship. Respondent's counter-claims regarding extortion intentions were deemed unconvincing, as Liwanag's detailed accounts were indicative of her distress and sense of exploitation

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.