Alfonso vs. Juanson

A judge cannot be dismissed for immorality on the basis of hearsay admissions and pre-appointment misconduct without substantial evidence of illicit sexual relations committed after appointment to the judiciary, though indiscreet personal meetings that create an appearance of impropriety and entail absence during official hours warrant administrative sanction.

Dr. Norbert L. Alfonso, a physician, is married to Sol Dinglasan Alfonso, with whom he has three young children. Modesto C. Juanson, formerly Sol's counsel in criminal cases involving dishonored checks when he was in private practice, was appointed Judge of the Regional Trial Court at Urdaneta, Pangasinan in November 1990 and later assigned to Branch 30 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila in April 1992. The charge tests the quantum of proof required for judicial immorality and the ethical proscription against impropriety and the appearance thereof under the Canons of Judicial Ethics and the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Complainant Dr. Norbert L. Alfonso and Sol Dinglasan were married at Sta. Ana Catholic Church on December 10, 1988, and had three sons then aged three years, two years, and four months. Respondent Modesto C. Juanson, then a practicing lawyer, had come to know Sol when she engaged his professional services in criminal cases involving dishonored checks filed in Rizal and Pasig, and he later stood as wedding sponsor for Sol's sister in 1989. According to complainant, their married life was peaceful until February 1991, when respondent's wife telephoned to report an affair between respondent and Sol and claimed possession of Sol's love letters; complainant disbelieved her, confronted Sol, and received assurances of fidelity.

On June 12, 1992, complainant and Sol left for a vacation in the United States, with Sol returning ahead on July 10, 1992 while complainant stayed until July 19, 1992. In the interim, respondent's wife allegedly called complainant's father, Atty. Norberto Alfonso, on June 17, 1992, sent photocopies of Sol's love letters by courier on June 20, 1992, and in late June 1992 personally delivered five original letters dated July 3, 1987, May 23, 1988, February 15, 1988, January 11, 1989, and March 7, 1989, together with respondent's picture, at a meeting in Quezon City. Upon Sol's return, Atty. Alfonso hired Truth Verifier System, Inc., whose investigators conducted surveillance and reported that Sol and respondent met at Unit 412-A of Citihomes, 130 San Francisco St., Mandaluyong, on July 11 and July 17, 1992, staying inside for two to three hours, then proceeding together to Robinson's Galleria where they were photographed lunching, with the judge's arm on Sol's shoulder and holding hands.

On July 25, 1992, complainant was shown the letters and photographs at his sister Celestine Barreto's house and recognized Sol's handwriting, including a GAIN memo pad used as his prescription pad, as well as Sol and respondent in the pictures. That evening, in the presence of their parents, complainant confronted Sol, who first denied a business discussion explanation and then, at about 1:30 a.m., admitted having sexual intercourse with the judge five times and having gone to the judge on Saturdays, as well as having been with him in Hongkong from December 26 to December 29, 1989, a trip corroborated by immigration records showing common flight dates. Complainant thereafter sent Sol out of the house, and they lived separately from July 26, 1992, while billing statements from Pacific Bell showed Sol had called respondent's court number from the United States on June 17 and 25, 1992.

Respondent, for his part, denied an illicit affair and maintained that Sol was a former client who sought legal advice regarding a Security Bank letter requiring explanation why she should not be declared absent without leave. He claimed the July 11 and July 17, 1992 meetings at Unit 412-A, leased by his friend Celestino Esteban, were to discuss and deliver a draft reply, with Esteban, his godson George Zari, and others present on the first date, followed by rides and lunch at Robinson's. He denied traveling to Hongkong with Sol, asserting his companion was client Cua Sen, who corroborated him, and claimed sexual incapacity due to diabetes mellitus requiring insulin since 1987 and prostatitis. The Investigating Justice credited complainant's version, disbelieved respondent's witnesses, and found immorality warranting dismissal.

• Immorality and Unfitness: Complainant maintained that respondent maintained illicit sexual relations with Sol Dinglasan Alfonso, as shown by love letters, surveillance photographs, Sol's admission of five acts of intercourse, common Hongkong travel, and overseas calls to respondent's court, rendering respondent undeserving of judicial office.
• Administrative Sanction: Complainant prayed that respondent be meted the appropriate administrative sanction for immorality and violation of the Code of Judicial Ethics.

• Denial of Affair: Respondent denied that he and Sol were lovers, that Sol sent him love letters, and that they used the Mandaluyong apartment for trysts, asserting they communicated only casually and innocently as former attorney and client.
• Professional Consultations: Respondent argued that the July 11 and July 17, 1992 meetings at Unit 412-A of Citihomes concerned Sol's employment problem with Security Bank, with other persons present, and that subsequent lunch and rides were innocent.
• Hongkong Trip: Respondent denied going to or seeing Sol in Hongkong on December 26 to 29, 1989, asserting his traveling companion was Cua Sen.
• Medical Incapacity: Respondent suggested sexual intercourse with Sol was impossible because he suffered from diabetes mellitus and prostatitis affecting his sexual potency, supporting the claim with medical certificates.

• Sufficiency of Evidence of Post-Appointment Immorality: Whether respondent is guilty of immorality for illicit sexual relations with complainant's wife committed after his appointment to the judiciary.
• Appearance of Impropriety: Whether respondent's meetings with Sol at Unit 412-A of Citihomes violated Canon 3 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics and Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
• Official Time and Neglect of Duty: Whether respondent violated the rule on official session hours by leaving his office during office hours on July 17, 1992 for personal reasons.

• Sufficiency of Evidence of Post-Appointment Immorality: No. Dismissal for immorality was not warranted, the charge of post-appointment illicit sex not having been proved by substantial evidence.
• Appearance of Impropriety: Yes. The meetings, viewed against the prior special relationship, created a reasonable suspicion of continuance or revival and thus an appearance of impropriety violative of judicial ethics.
• Official Time and Neglect of Duty: Yes. Leaving the Manila City Hall office at about 11:00 a.m. on Friday, July 17, 1992 for Mandaluyong made timely return for the 2:00 p.m. session impossible, constituting neglect of duty.

• Sufficiency of Evidence of Post-Appointment Immorality: Sol's admission relayed through complainant made no reference to specific dates and was objected to as hearsay and barred by the res inter alios acta rule, with the Investigating Justice expressly admitting it merely as part of the narration. As independently relevant statements, the words proved only that Sol made admissions, not the truth of the five acts of intercourse against respondent, and it would be unfair to disregard that ruling even though technical rules are relaxed in administrative cases. Even if taken for truth, the five undated acts could not be presumed to have occurred after the November 1990 judicial appointment, since the affair antedated the December 10, 1988 marriage, no post-1990 love notes were presented, and the last proven joint travel was Hongkong in 1989; prior immorality cannot ground discipline for conduct as a judge, who must be presumed capable of moral reformation upon realization that public office is a public trust.
• Appearance of Impropriety: The July 11 and July 17, 1992 meetings at Unit 412-A did not by themselves prove trysts for libidinal gratification, and respondent offered an alternative legal-advice explanation. However, given the established special relationship evidenced by love letters and prior intimacy, the meetings could reasonably incite suspicion of continuance or revival with concomitant intimacies. By succumbing to memories of the past and failing to disappoint Sol, respondent became indiscreet, violating the mandate that official conduct be free from impropriety and personal behavior beyond reproach and that impropriety and its appearance be avoided in all activities.
• Official Time and Neglect of Duty: On July 17, 1992 respondent left his Manila office at about 11:00 a.m., arrived in Mandaluyong thirty minutes later, and left the unit at 1:30 p.m. Considering distance and usual traffic, return for the 2:00 p.m. afternoon session required by the Interim and Transitional Rules and Guidelines Relative to the Implementation of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1981 was impossible. Absence for purely personal reasons thus constituted neglect of duty, while the medical incapacity defense was self-serving, irrelevant, and unsupported by expert testimony, immorality not being confined to sexual intercourse in any event.

• Res inter alios acta and hearsay admitted as independently relevant statements — Statements or admissions of a non-party offered through another witness, when admitted merely as part of the narration, prove only that the statements were made and not the truth of the facts revealed therein. The admission in evidence of words spoken is not to be used in determining the issue of their truth. Applied here, Sol's alleged confession of five acts of intercourse relayed by complainant could not be deemed direct and competent evidence against respondent.
• Substantial evidence in administrative cases — Immorality imputed to an incumbent judge must be proven by substantial evidence. Suspicion arising from meetings, undated admissions, and pre-appointment love letters does not satisfy this quantum where no positive and competent evidence shows sexual acts after appointment.
• Non-retroactivity of pre-appointment immorality for judicial discipline — Proof of immoral conduct before appointment to the judiciary cannot be a basis for administrative discipline as a judge in this case. The appointee is presumed to have bound himself to conduct free from impropriety and is capable of moral reformation, for no man is beyond reformation and redemption.
• Appearance of impropriety under Canon 3, Canons of Judicial Ethics and Canon 2, Code of Judicial Conduct — A judge's official conduct should be free from the appearance of impropriety and personal behavior beyond reproach, and impropriety and its appearance must be avoided in all activities. A magistrate must comport himself so conduct bears the most searching public scrutiny, as ethical propriety preserves faith in the judiciary. Respondent's meetings with a former lover, though not proved as sexual trysts, violated these canons.
• Immorality not confined to sexual matters — Immorality includes conduct inconsistent with rectitude, or indicative of corruption, indecency, depravity, and dissoluteness; or wilful, flagrant, or shameless conduct showing moral indifference to opinions of respectable members of the community, and an inconsiderate attitude toward good order and public welfare. Hence claimed medical incapacity to copulate was irrelevant and self-serving without expert proof.

• "If they were then allowed by the Investigating Justice as merely 'part of the narration,' they should only be considered as independently relevant statements, i.e., as proof that Sol made statements or admissions, but not as proof of the truth of facts revealed in the said statements or admissions." — States the evidentiary treatment of Sol's hearsay admission and why it could not prove illicit sex against respondent.
• "It would be unreasonable and unfair to presume that since he had wandered from the path of moral righteousness, he could never retrace his steps and walk proud and tall again in that path. No man is beyond reformation and redemption." — Explains why pre-appointment affair could not be presumed to continue after appointment without substantial evidence.
• "He thus violated Canon 3 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics which mandates that '[a] judge’s official conduct should be free from the appearance of impropriety, and his personal behavior, not only upon the bench and in the performance of judicial duties, but also in his everyday life, should be beyond reproach,' and Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which provides that '[a] judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.'" — Formulates the ethical basis for sanction despite acquittal on the immorality charge.
• "immorality has not been confined to sexual matters, but includes conduct inconsistent with rectitude, or indicative of corruption, indecency, depravity, and dissoluteness; or is wilful, flagrant, or shameless conduct showing moral indifference to opinions of respectable members of the community, and as an inconsiderate attitude toward good order and public welfare." — Provides the controlling definition rendering the medical-incapacity defense irrelevant.

• Jugueta vs. Boncaros, 60 SCRA 27 [1974] — Cited for the principle that a lawyer aspiring to magistracy must keep private and official conduct free from appearance of impropriety, supporting the presumption of reformation upon appointment.
• Dia-Añonuevo vs. Bercacio, 68 SCRA 81 [1975] — Cited for the rule that a magistrate must comport himself so that official or other conduct bears the most searching public scrutiny as epitome of integrity and justice.
• Candia vs. Tagabucba, 79 SCRA 51 [1977] — Cited for the principle that a judge's ethical propriety is essential to preservation of public faith in the judiciary.
• Leynes vs. Veloso, 82 SCRA 325 [1978] — Invoked by the Investigating Justice as precedent and moral compass for recommending dismissal; the Court did not adopt the dismissal outcome for lack of substantial evidence.
• Castillo vs. Calanog, 199 SCRA 75 [1991] — Likewise invoked by the Investigating Justice to support a guilty finding and dismissal; the Court imposed only a fine on the facts proved.

• Canon 3, Canons of Judicial Ethics — Mandates that official conduct be free from appearance of impropriety and personal behavior, on and off the bench, be beyond reproach; violated by respondent's indiscreet meetings creating suspicion of continued liaison.
• Canon 2, Code of Judicial Conduct — Provides that a judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities; violated for the same indiscreet meetings.
• Section 1, Article XI, 1987 Constitution — Declares public office a public trust and requires accountability, responsibility, integrity, loyalty, efficiency, patriotism, justice, and modest lives; cited to support presumed moral transformation upon judicial appointment.
• Paragraph 5, Interim and Transitional Rules and Guidelines Relative to the Implementation of the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1981 — Fixes commencement of afternoon official session hours at 2:00 p.m.; respondent's midday absence to Mandaluyong made compliance impossible and amounted to neglect of duty.

Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Romero, Nocon, Melo, Quiason, Puno and Vitug, JJ., concur. Bellosillo, J., took no part. Padilla, Bidin and Regalado, JJ., concur in the result. Feliciano, J., concurred in the result, but believed the penalty is too nominal given the whole context of the case.