Espejon and Cabonita vs. Lorredo

A judge's use of homophobic slurs, overbearing demeanor, and improper injection of personal religious beliefs during judicial proceedings constitutes simple misconduct, conduct unbecoming, and work-related sexual harassment, violating canons on propriety, integrity, and equality, even absent proof of actual bias in the case's outcome.

Complainants Marcelino Espejon and Erickson Cabonita were defendants in an unlawful detainer case (Civil Case No. M-MNL-18-08450-SC) presided over by respondent Judge Lorredo. During the preliminary conference, Judge Lorredo made remarks that complainants alleged showed prejudgment, bias, and partiality against them based on their sexual orientation. He also extensively referenced the Bible and his religious beliefs in attempting to secure an amicable settlement. Complainants filed a motion for inhibition, which was denied, and subsequently filed this administrative complaint. The ejectment case was decided against complainants, but that decision was under appeal separately.

• Nature of the Underlying Case: The administrative complaint arose from the conduct of Judge Lorredo during the preliminary conference in Civil Case No. M-MNL-18-08450-SC, an unlawful detainer case filed against herein complainants.
• The Judge's Remarks During Preliminary Conference: The transcript of stenographic notes revealed that Judge Lorredo repeatedly badgered complainants about their sexual orientation, asking if they were in a "homosexual relationship" and if either was "bading." He stated that "God hates homosexuality" and that being homosexual "may be one of the reasons why a person is being punished by God." He also made derogatory remarks about other judges perceived to be gay.
• Use of Religious Beliefs: Judge Lorredo admitted to using the Bible to settle cases, claiming to have settled 101 cases with its help. During the conference, he quoted Biblical passages (e.g., "Thou shall not steal") to argue that complainants' refusal to vacate was a sin and would bring God's punishment upon them and their descendants.
• Overbearing Demeanor: The judge persistently pressured complainants to agree to vacate, questioning their intentions to delay the case and accusing them of having no intention to leave. He framed their legal defense as causing unnecessary hardship to the plaintiffs.
• Judge's Justification: In his Comment, Judge Lorredo denied bias, claimed he was merely guiding parties with the Bible, and argued that his statements about homosexuality were in response to one complainant pointing at the other. He maintained that his remarks about the need to vacate were based on the legal principle of tolerance.
• Prior Administrative Liability: The Court noted this was Judge Lorredo's second administrative offense. In Magno v. Lorredo (2017), he was fined for "conduct unbecoming" for insulting remarks made during a preliminary conference.

• Bias and Prejudgment: Complainants argued that Judge Lorredo's remarks during the preliminary conference demonstrated prejudgment of the ejectment case and clear bias against them based on their perceived sexual orientation.
• Improper Religious Influence: They maintained that the judge's use of the Bible and religious teachings to pressure them into settlement was inappropriate and violated the separation of church and state, as well as judicial ethics requiring decisions based on law and evidence.
• Violation of Judicial Canons: Complainants contended that the judge's conduct violated Rule 1.02, Canon 1 (observance of the Constitution), and Canons 3 (impartiality), 4 (propriety), and 5 (equality) of the New Code of Judicial Conduct.

• No Prejudgment or Bias: Judge Lorredo denied prejudging the case or expressing the view that complainants were in a homosexual relationship. He argued his statements were based on the legal principle of tolerance and the complainants' own admissions.
• Religious Guidance as Settlement Tool: He countered that his use of the Bible was a sincere effort to guide litigants toward amicable settlement, a practice he claimed had been successful in many other cases.
• Freedom of Religious Expression: Judge Lorredo asserted his right to freedom of expression and belief, arguing that he was merely warning complainants about God's commandments and punishments as he understood them.

• Judicial Misconduct: Whether Judge Lorredo's remarks and demeanor during the preliminary conference constitute simple misconduct, conduct unbecoming, or grave misconduct.
• Sexual Harassment: Whether the judge's derogatory remarks about sexual orientation constitute work-related sexual harassment under Civil Service Commission rules.
• Impartiality and Propriety: Whether the judge's actions violated the canons on judicial propriety, integrity, and equality by creating an appearance of bias and by improperly injecting his religious beliefs into judicial proceedings.

• Judicial Misconduct: The acts constituted simple misconduct and conduct unbecoming, not grave misconduct. The overbearing demeanor and improper use of religious beliefs transgressed established rules on judicial conduct, but the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of rules (required for grave misconduct) were not present.
• Sexual Harassment: The derogatory and degrading remarks directed at complainants' sexual orientation constituted work-related sexual harassment as a less grave offense under Section 53(B)(3), Rule X of CSC Resolution No. 01-0940.
• Impartiality and Propriety: The judge violated Canons 2, 4, and 5 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct. His remarks failed to preserve the dignity of the judicial office (Canon 4), did not reaffirm public faith in the judiciary's integrity (Canon 2), and manifested bias based on sexual orientation, an irrelevant ground (Canon 5). While insufficient evidence proved actual bias in the case's outcome, the appearance of impropriety was established.

• Judicial Propriety and Appearance of Impropriety — Judges must avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities. Their conduct must be above reproach and perceived as such by a reasonable observer to maintain public faith in the judiciary. The Court applied this to find that Judge Lorredo's remarks, even if not motivated by actual bias, created a damaging appearance of partiality.
• Judicial Equality and Non-Discrimination — Judges must be aware of societal diversity and shall not manifest bias or prejudice by words or conduct against any person or group on irrelevant grounds, including sexual orientation. The Court used this doctrine to condemn the judge's homophobic slurs as a clear violation of the duty to ensure equality of treatment before the courts.
• Limits on Religious Expression in Judicial Functions — While judges are entitled to freedom of belief, they must conduct themselves to preserve the dignity of the judicial office and the impartiality of the judiciary. Religious beliefs cannot be allowed to interfere with judicial functions or be used to pressure litigants. The Court distinguished this case from Veneracion, where mere reading of Bible verses was discouraged, by noting Judge Lorredo's active use of religion to influence case outcomes.

• "The statements Judge Lorredo made during the preliminary conference, and especially in the Comment he filed in this case, are clearly tantamount to homophobic slurs which have no place in our courts of law."
• "Judges who fall short of [being learned, dignified, refined, and virtuous] and are, on the contrary, inconsiderate, discourteous or uncivil to lawyers, litigants or witnesses who appear in their courts commit an impropriety and fail in their duty to reaffirm the people's faith in the judiciary."
• "Obedience to the rule of law forms the bedrock of our system of justice. If judges, under the guise of religious or political beliefs were allowed to roam unrestricted beyond boundaries within which they are required by law to exercise the duties of their office, then law becomes meaningless."

• Magno v. Lorredo (A.M. No. MTJ-17-1905, 2017) — Cited as a prior administrative case where Judge Lorredo was found liable for "conduct unbecoming" for insulting remarks during a preliminary conference, establishing a pattern of behavior and the relevance of the stern warning previously given.
• Concerned Trial Lawyers of Manila v. Veneracion (A.M. Nos. RTJ-05-1920 et al., 2006) — Used as instructive precedent on the impropriety of judges allowing religious beliefs to interfere with judicial functions, though the Court found Judge Lorredo's conduct more egregious than the judge's in Veneracion.
• Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v. Commission on Elections (G.R. No. 190582, 2010) — Cited for the principle that democracy precludes using the religious or moral views of one part of the community to exclude the values of others, reinforcing the condemnation of homophobic remarks.
• Juan de la Cruz v. Carretas (A.M. No. RTJ-07-2043, 2007) — Cited for the reminder that judges must possess gravitas and be dignified in demeanor and refined in speech, supporting the finding of conduct unbecoming.
• Elgar v. Santos, Jr. (A.M. No. MTJ-16-1880, 2020) — Cited for the proposition that a judge's overbearing persistence to force an amicable settlement can constitute simple misconduct.

• Canons 2, 4, and 5, New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary (A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC) — Specifically, Sections 1 and 2 of Canon 2 (Integrity), Sections 1 and 6 of Canon 4 (Propriety), and Sections 1, 2, and 3 of Canon 5 (Equality). These provisions were applied to hold Judge Lorredo liable for failing to act with integrity, propriety, and equality.
• Section 53(B)(3), Rule X, CSC Resolution No. 01-0940 (Administrative Disciplinary Rules on Sexual Harassment Cases) — This provision classifies "derogatory or degrading remarks or innuendoes... directed toward... one's sexual orientation" as a less grave offense. It was applied to find the judge guilty of work-related sexual harassment.
• Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 21-03-17-SC — Governs the discipline of judges and court personnel. It was applied to classify the offenses (simple misconduct as less serious, conduct unbecoming as light) and determine the corresponding penalties.

• Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo (Chairperson)
• Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting
• Justice Jhosep Y. Gaerlan
• Justice Japar B. Dimaampao

N/A — The decision was unanimous.