Mah-Arevalo vs. Mantua

A judge who uses his chambers in the Hall of Justice as a dwelling place violates SC Administrative Circular No. 3-92 and A.M. No. 01-9-09-SC, and maintaining an extramarital affair while holding judicial office constitutes immorality. Where the judge has already retired and can no longer be dismissed or suspended, the appropriate penalty is a fine to be deducted from retirement benefits.

Dorothy Fe Mah-Arevalo, a Court Stenographer at the Regional Trial Court of Palompon, Leyte, Branch 17, filed an administrative complaint against her presiding judge, Celso L. Mantua, before the Office of the Court Administrator. The complaint, later amended, accused the judge of multiple offenses including disgraceful and immoral conduct, gross neglect of duty, dishonesty, and ignorance of the law. Among the core allegations were that he resided in his chambers at the Hall of Justice and openly conducted an extramarital affair, using court premises for that purpose. Respondent denied the charges and asserted he had already been separated from service due to compulsory retirement.

• Parties and Complaint: Dorothy Fe Mah-Arevalo, Court Stenographer of RTC Palompon, Leyte, Branch 17, filed an Amended Administrative Complaint against Judge Celso L. Mantua of the same court. The charges included: (a) using the Hall of Justice, particularly his chamber, as his residence; (b) openly bringing his mistress to court; (c) using the court process server as his personal driver; (d) delegating his workload to his legal researcher; (e) committing gross ignorance of the law by trying a criminal case where the accused was without counsel and extorting money; (f) requesting gasoline and personal allowances from the local government; and (g) failing to decide cases within the reglementary period in anticipation of monetary consideration.
• Respondent’s Defense: Respondent denied all accusations. He claimed he rented a house near the Hall of Justice and did not reside there. The woman frequently seen in his office was his caterer delivering food. He only hitchhiked with the process server on certain days because their routes coincided. He personally prepared his decisions, with the legal researcher merely assisting in legal research. He admitted proceeding with trial despite the accused being unassisted by counsel, but justified it on the ground that the accused violated the three-day rule on postponements and failed to notify the adverse party; he denied extorting money. He confirmed receiving allowances from the local government, as did other local officials. He further averred that he had compulsorily retired on January 9, 2009.
• Evidence of Residential Use and Immorality: During investigation, complainant testified consistently and spontaneously. Utility Worker Dyndee Nuñez corroborated that respondent brought his mistress to the Hall of Justice and slept with her inside his chamber. Nuñez observed the mistress accompanying respondent to fiestas and public places. The Investigating Justice found complainant’s testimony credible and noted there was no reason for Nuñez to fabricate her account.
• Exoneration on Other Charges: The Investigating Justice found insufficient evidence to hold respondent liable for the remaining charges and exonerated him accordingly.

• No Residential Use: Respondent maintained that he could not be residing at the Hall of Justice because he was renting a vacant house nearby during his tenure. He denied sleeping in his chambers.
• No Mistress: Respondent explained that the woman often seen entering his office was merely his caterer who brought him food, not a paramour.
• Retirement: Respondent argued that, having compulsorily retired on January 9, 2009, he was already separated from service and thus could no longer be subjected to administrative penalties.

• Residential Use: Whether respondent Judge Celso L. Mantua violated SC Administrative Circular No. 3-92 and A.M. No. 01-9-09-SC by using his chambers in the Hall of Justice as a residence.
• Immorality: Whether respondent is guilty of immorality for bringing his mistress to his chambers and using the premises for their extramarital affair.

• Residential Use: The prohibition was violated. SC Administrative Circular No. 3-92 explicitly provides that Halls of Justice may be used only for functions directly related to the administration of justice, and may not be devoted to any other use, least of all as residential quarters. A.M. No. 01-9-09-SC, Section 3, likewise restricts use of the Hall of Justice exclusively to court and office purposes, expressly forbidding residential use such as dwelling or sleeping. Complainant’s evidence sufficiently established that respondent used his chambers as his residential and dwelling place. Respondent’s defense that he rented a house did not negate the possibility, as a person may rent one place while physically residing in another.
• Immorality: Immorality was established. Immorality is defined as conduct inconsistent with rectitude, indicative of corruption, indecency, depravity, and dissoluteness, or willful, flagrant, or shameless conduct showing moral indifference to the opinions of respectable members of the community. The testimonies of complainant and Nuñez demonstrated that respondent paraded his mistress in public view and had the audacity to use his chambers as a haven for morally depraved acts. Engaging in an extramarital affair is not only a violation of the moral standards expected of the judiciary but also a desecration of the sanctity of marriage which the Court abhors and is therefore punishable. Since respondent had already compulsorily retired and could no longer be dismissed or suspended, the appropriate penalty was a fine of ₱40,000.00, to be deducted from his retirement benefits.

• Immorality defined — Immorality includes not only sexual matters but also conduct inconsistent with rectitude, or indicative of corruption, indecency, depravity, and dissoluteness; or is willful, 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. Applied here to encompass respondent’s extramarital affair and use of court premises for immoral purposes.
• Extramarital affair as administrative offense — Engaging in an extramarital affair is a desecration of the sanctity of marriage, which the Court abhors, and constitutes immorality punishable under the Rules of Court. Even if the judge has retired, a fine may be imposed to vindicate the exacting standards of judicial conduct.
• Penalty upon retirement — Where a respondent judge can no longer be dismissed or suspended from office due to compulsory retirement, the appropriate penalty is a fine, which shall be deducted from retirement benefits.

• "Immorality has been defined 'to include not only sexual matters but also conduct inconsistent with rectitude, or indicative of corruption, indecency, depravity, and dissoluteness; or is willful, 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.'" — The Court’s adoption of the definition from Adlawan v. Capilitan, applied to respondent’s conduct.
• "SC ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 3-92, AUGUST 31, 1992 … All judges and court personnel are hereby reminded that the Halls of Justice may be used only for purposes directly related to the functioning and operation of the courts of justice, and may not be devoted to any other use, least of all as residential quarters of the judges or court personnel …" — The prohibition foundational to the charge of using chambers as a residence.

• Adlawan v. Capilitan, A.M. No. P-12-3080, August 29, 2012, 679 SCRA 184 — Cited for the definition of immorality.
• Geroy v. Judge Calderon, 593 Phil. 585, 597 (2008) — Invoked for the principle that judges must adhere to exacting standards of morality and decency.
• Jallorina v. Taneo-Regner, A.M. No. P-11-2948, April 23, 2012, 670 SCRA 301 — Cited as authority that engaging in an extramarital affair is punishable.
• National Bureau of Investigation v. Judge Villanueva, 421 Phil. 649, 663 (2001) — Applied for the rule that a fine may be imposed in lieu of dismissal or suspension where the respondent judge has already retired.

• SC Administrative Circular No. 3-92 (August 31, 1992) — Prohibits the use of Halls of Justice for residential and commercial purposes; the Halls may be used only for functions related to the administration of justice. Applied to respondent’s act of sleeping in his chambers.
• A.M. No. 01-9-09-SC, Section 3, Part I — Provides that the Hall of Justice shall be used only for court and office purposes and shall not be used for residential (dwelling or sleeping) or commercial purposes; cooking, except for boiling water for coffee or similar beverage, is not allowed. Violated by respondent’s residential use.
• Rule 140, Section 11(A), Rules of Court — Classifies immorality as a serious charge punishable by dismissal, suspension, or a fine of more than ₱20,000.00 but not exceeding ₱40,000.00. Applied as the basis for the fine imposed.

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno (Chairperson), Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. (Acting Member per Special Order No. 1870), Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo (Additional Member per Raffle dated November 10, 2014).