A.M. No. MTJ-98-1162 - Simbajon vs. Esteban

Case Summary (A.M. No. MTJ-98-1162)

Factual Background

The sworn complaint narrated that when the local position of book binder in Branch I became vacant, Simbajon applied for the position but her papers remained unsigned for some time. She decided to approach respondent on June 25, 1997 inside his airconditioned chamber. During that conversation, respondent allegedly told her words in Filipino to the effect that she would be his “girlfriend,” that she should come to his office every day, and that she should give him a daily kiss. Simbajon responded that he was like a father to her. As respondent signed her papers, he allegedly stood up, went behind her, and kissed her left cheek.

Simbajon alleged that she left the chamber immediately, in fear, promising herself never to enter again or talk to respondent. She further claimed that on August 5, 1997 at around 9:30 a.m., Court Interpreter Virginia S. Medina informed her that she was being called by respondent regarding payroll matters. Despite trauma from the prior incident, she alleged she still went because she was a subordinate with no choice.

According to the complaint, respondent instructed her to stand beside his table. He then asked since when she had been receiving a book binder’s salary. When she answered, respondent allegedly questioned why she had not been coming into his room as he had said she was his girlfriend. Respondent then allegedly stood up, uttered “I cannot—my love,” grabbed her, kissed her all over her face, embraced her, and touched her right breast. She alleged she freed herself, left the chamber hurriedly, and threw the payroll voucher on the table of a co-employee, Elizabeth Q. Malubay, while visibly shocked and fearful. Malubay allegedly accompanied Simbajon to the comfort room, where she cried and related the alleged incidents.

Respondent’s Denial and Defenses

Respondent filed an Answer dated December 2, 1997. He denied the allegations, including the specific assertions about June 25, 1997 and August 5, 1997. He asserted that when Simbajon presented her papers, he signed them as a formality because the same had already been approved by the City Mayor. Respondent claimed that after she rose, she only buzzed him on the forehead and thanked him, and he returned the gesture with a friendly reply. He denied having “sent for” Simbajon through the interpreter and maintained that he signed the payroll because it had already been stacked on his table for his signature.

Respondent also invoked the purported physical impossibility of the accusation, arguing that the chamber door was always fully open and that employees sat in assigned places such that any unusual conversation or commotion inside would be detected. He further asserted that he maintained fatherly conduct toward all employees, conducted himself publicly in an amiable manner, had no personal enmity, and denied any reason to be charged. He also objected to the affidavit of Malubay as “preposterous,” “hearsay,” and contrary to reason and common sense.

Referral for Investigation and Preventive Suspension

On August 31, 1998, the Court referred the case to Executive Judge Federico Fajardo Jr. of the Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan City (Branch 30) for investigation, report, and recommendation. The Court also placed respondent under preventive suspension for the duration of the investigation until further notice.

Investigating Judge’s Findings and Evidentiary Assessment

In his Report, Judge Fajardo accorded credibility to Simbajon and her witnesses. He rejected respondent’s testimony and the defense witnesses as insufficient. The investigating judge found that respondent had not presented proof to show that complainant was capable of fabricating a tale of sexual harassment that exposed her to stigma, humiliation, and strain on her marriage.

Judge Fajardo also treated as unpersuasive respondent’s attempts to cast the complaint as motivated by ill will and to portray complainant as one who would risk her reputation without reason. The report reasoned that complainant’s subsequent filing of a complaint before the Ombudsman, which was being heard at the Sandiganbayan, negated the notion that the charge was a mere fabrication designed to avenge or embarrass him.

On the issue of alleged pressure to withdraw the case, Judge Fajardo noted testimony that respondent exerted pressure through others to cause complainant to dismiss the administrative complaint. Respondent’s rebuttal was found unconvincing.

Judge Fajardo concluded that there was sufficient evidence to create moral certainty that respondent committed the alleged acts. He emphasized jurisprudence that in cases involving judges, sexual harassment is aggravated when the complainant is a subordinate over whom the judge exercises control and supervision, and the respondent took advantage of that authority to carry out lustful desires. The report further stated that, instead of acting in loco parentis, respondent preyed on an employee.

Judge Fajardo thus recommended dismissal from the service.

Court’s Review and Applicable Ethical Standards

The Office of the Court Administrator agreed with the investigating judge. After examining the record, the Court adopted the findings and recommendation, holding that the evidence supported the charges. It underscored that judges are expected to possess the highest standard of morality and decency, and that the Code of Judicial Conduct requires avoidance of impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.

The Court quoted Canon 2 and Rule 2.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, explaining that a judge should behave so as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, and that the canons also echo the principle of avoiding the appearance of impropriety and keeping personal conduct beyond reproach.

Credibility of Complainant and Corroborating Testimony

The Court grounded its ruling on complainant’s narrative as affirmed under cross-examination, and on corroboration. The Court observed that, according to Simbajon, the chamber door was closed by her at the time of the incidents and had been habitually closed since she was assigned to the office because it was airconditioned. The Court also observed that complainant did not allege that any loud commotion was created such that it would have been heard outside the chambers. It noted that after the alleged assaults in both episodes, she hurriedly left the chamber and did not create a scene outside. After the first incident, she remained silent and promised herself never to enter the chamber again. After the second incident, she and Malubay went to the comfort room where she cried and related what happened.

The Court further treated as significant Malubay’s testimony that she saw Simbajon rushing out, throwing the payroll on Malubay’s table, and visibly trembling in fear and teary-eyed as if afraid of something. Malubay took her out and accompanied her to the comfort room where complainant related the incident.

The Court also considered complainant’s husband’s affidavit testimony describing changes in complainant’s demeanor after the incident and stating that she later told him that respondent made sexual advances by grabbing, kissing, embracing, and touching her breast inside respondent’s chamber.

Against these, the Court held that respondent’s denial and the defense accounts were not sufficient to overcome the positive testimony of credible witnesses.

Additional Circumstances Reflecting Abuse of Authority

The Court also highlighted evidence described by witness Priscilla Santos showing respondent’s power over complainant’s work-related access to approvals and signatures. Santos testified that she ran errands for Simbajon to facilitate vouchers for salary release and that certain officials conditioned intervention on what Simbajon was willing to pay or indicated fear of removal from plantilla positions if she was involved. Santos further testified that respondent refused or delayed actions relating to detail orders and voucher approvals, and that respondent ultimately signed only after a personal note and the supporting documents were presented. The Court treated these circumstances as further manifestations of respondent’s arrogance

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. MTJ-98-1162)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Ana May M. Simbajon filed a sworn complaint accusing Judge Rogelio M. Esteban, Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch I, Cabanatuan City, of sexual harassment and grave misconduct.
The charge originated from a letter dated September 8, 1997, which Simbajon later supported with a Sworn Complaint dated September 8, 1997.
On August 31, 1998, the Court referred the case to Executive Judge Federico Fajardo Jr. for investigation, report, and recommendation.
The Court placed Judge Esteban under preventive suspension pending the investigation.
The investigating judge recommended dismissal from the service.
The Court adopted the investigating judge’s factual findings and jurisprudential framework and dismissed the respondent judge.

Key Factual Allegations

Simbajon alleged that she applied for a vacant local position of book binder in Branch I and that her papers requiring Judge Esteban’s signature remained unacted upon for some time.
Simbajon claimed that on June 25, 1997, she approached Judge Esteban inside his airconditioned chamber, and he allegedly told her that she would be his girlfriend in exchange for his signature and that she should come to his office daily, with an alleged instruction of kissing.
Simbajon alleged that after Judge Esteban signed her papers, he allegedly stood up, went to where she sat, and suddenly kissed her left cheek.
Simbajon asserted that she left the chamber in fear and vowed never to enter again or talk to the judge.
Simbajon further alleged that on August 5, 1997, Court Interpreter Virginia S. Medina told her she was being called by Judge Esteban regarding payroll, and that despite her trauma she was constrained to comply as a subordinate.
Simbajon alleged that Judge Esteban instructed her to stand beside his table and then asked about her receiving a book binder’s salary.
Simbajon alleged that Judge Esteban then reiterated the alleged girlfriend demand and that she replied that it could not be possible because he was like a father to her.
Simbajon alleged that Judge Esteban stood up, said “HINDI PUEDE ‘YAN, MAHAL KITA,” then allegedly grabbed her, kissed her all over her face, embraced her, and touched her right breast.
Simbajon alleged that she freed herself, left hurriedly, and threw the payroll voucher on a co-employee’s table while crying and trembling.
Simbajon alleged that Elizabeth Q. Malubay accompanied her to the comfort room, where Simbajon allegedly narrated the incident.

Respondent’s Denial and Defenses

Judge Esteban denied the core allegations through his Answer filed on December 2, 1997.
Judge Esteban alleged that, when Simbajon approached him with papers, he scanned them and signed only because his signature was allegedly a formality, especially since the papers were allegedly already approved by the City Mayor, Hon. Manolette S. Liwag.
Judge Esteban claimed that Simbajon, after he signed, allegedly buzzed him on the forehead while saying that he was loved “like a father,” and he allegedly smiled and replied “salamat.”
Judge Esteban denied the allegation that he called Simbajon through Court Interpreter Virgie Medina on August 5, 1997.
Judge Esteban alleged that he re-entered his chamber after talking with people at the MTCC lobby and found the payroll voucher already stacked on his table for signature.
Judge Esteban asserted an ostensible physical impossibility for the accusations because the door to the staff room was allegedly always open and employees were allegedly seated in ways that any unusual conversation or commotion would allegedly be detected.
Judge Esteban claimed he maintained fatherly conduct toward all employees and acted publicly with amiable and good behavior.
Judge Esteban asserted lack of ill will, denial of any reason to be charged, and highlighted civic and fraternal roles as evidence of his standing.
Judge Esteban objected to the affidavit of Elizabeth Q. Malubay, characterizing it as hearsay and preposterous.

Investigation and Credibility Findings

The investigating judge accorded credibility to Simbajon and her witnesses and rejected the testimony of Judge Esteban and his witnesses.
The investigating judge held that Judge Esteban failed to present proof that Simbajon would spin a lie at the expense of her morality and reputation.
The investigating judge found it unlikely that Simbajon would risk her marriage and family’s stability to fabricate a sexual harassment charge.
The investigating judge considered Simbajon’s pursuit of remedies, including a complaint before the Ombudsman later heard at the Sandiganbayan, as consistent with an effort to seek justice rather than a fabricated story.
The investigating judge characterized the respondent’s primary defense of denial as negative and self-serving, giving it no weight absent clear and convincing evidence.
The invest