Paz. Mikaela Denise N.

May 13, 2021

2017010271 Atty. Ong
Liwanag v Judge Lustre
A.M. No. MTJ-98-1168
April 21, 1999; J. Quisumbing

Facts:

. Liwanag sent a letter to the SC praying that respondent Judge Paterno H. Lustre
be dismissed from the service due to "gross immorality and grave misconduct
unbecoming of his profession." She alleged that respondent judge sexually molested
her. She alleged that her husband, Jose B. Zafra filed twelve (12) counts of violation of
B.P. 22 against Oscar Chua, Dante Chua and Rowena Chua for issuing checks
amounting to approximately 3.5 million pesos, that were dishonored when presented for
payment. That the said cases were assigned at the Municipal Trial Court of Calamba,
Laguna, which is presided by Judge Paterno Lustre. The date of the case was set for
hearing, however, when the date came, Judge Lustre was not present. Hence, the
hearing was reset. That she went to see Judge Lustre at his chamber to inquire about
the case filed by my husband, why the accused have not yet been arraigned. At that
point, she asked Judge Lustre if it is possible to schedule hearings in January and
February, 1995 and every month thereafter and to order the arraignment of the
accused. He responded in the affirmative and told her to come back after the hearing on
December 15, 1994, at about 7:00 A.M. in his chamber. As requested, on December 16,
1994, one day after the hearing, at about 7:00 A.M., Liwanag went to see Judge Lustre
at his chamber. There, he told her that he prepared an order for the accused. She
thanked him and she told him that if the accused will pay us, she and her husband and
will give him five (5%) percent of it as token of gratitude. At that point, he stood up and
told her he does not need money. While he was giving her a copy of the order, he
touched her shoulder, down to her breast. Liwanang froze and could not do anything.
He was telling her that he acceded to her request. Later, he told her that he is available
during Mondays and Fridays as there are no scheduled hearings and for her to come
back to him before the hearing on January 17, 1995. Liwanag did not go back to see
Judge Lustre as per his request before the hearing on Jan. 17, 1995 because of what
he did to her, by taking advantage of the situation to molest her. Came the date of the
hearing on Jan. 17, 1995. Despite the previous order setting the case for hearing for
Feb. 1, 9 and 23, 1995, he cancelled hearings on all dates as per request of the counsel
for the accused. Instead, he reset the same on Feb. 22, 28 and March 7, 1995. When
the hearing on Feb. 22, 1995 came, Judge Lustre cancelled the one set on Feb. 28,
1995. By the way things were going, Liwanag could sense that Judge Lustre is delaying
the case, granting postponement after postponement, despite objections from their
lawyer. The case was already dragging and nothing was happening. Liwanag and her
husband were running out of money and they needed to have the case terminated right
away in order to get paid for the money the accused have swindled them. Because of
this dilemma, she decided to see Judge Lustre. Liwanag went to see Judge Lustre and
asked him why he cancelled the hearings. He responded that she fooled him since she
did not come to him as per his request, whereas he acceded to her earlier request. He
then told her that she must obey his wishes if she wants their case to go smoothly since
he is the only one who will decide their cases. After that, he told her that he was already
free and for her to wait for him outside the courtroom. They boarded his white Toyota
car and he brought her to Canlubang Tollway. While in the car, he kissed her on the lips
and caressed her breast. Liwanag was repulsed and disgusted but she said she could
not do anything since their cases are with him and he was deliberately delaying the
hearings. At that instant, she told him to set hearings for April and May, 1995 since
according to his staff, there would be no hearings in May and in April. He told her, he
will take care of it and ordered her to come to his office on March 13, 1995 at 7:00 A.M.
to talk about the settings. As ordered, Liwanag went to see Judge Lustre at his office at
around 7:10 A.M. There was no one there except him. She saw him waiting just outside
his chamber. He ushered her inside, but she had barely entered the room, when he
kissed her on the lips and caressed her body, particularly her breast. He exposed his
penis and ordered her to masturbate him. She could not do anything but obey. There
was a fluid that oozed from his penis, which was somewhat bloody. She said she felt
dirty. While doing that, he told her to tell my lawyer to file a motion to set hearing for
April and May, 1995. He then asked her to go with him to Laguna de Bay Inn. She
refused and accused got angry. He retorted that the fate of their case is on his hands
and told her to see him on March 23, 1995 at 7:00 A.M. at Laguna de Bay Inn in Sucat
since his house is near the area. After that, Liwanag’s lawyer filed a Motion to Set Case
for Hearing. But she did not go and see Judge Lustre at Laguna de Bay Inn. Thus, on
March 28, 1995 hearing, no schedule was set for April and May. Instead, he made the
setting in June, 1995. On April 10, 1995 Liwanag received a new subpoena for pre-trial
and arraignment of the new cases we filed, scheduling the same for May 3, 1995. The
following day, April 11, Tuesday, she went to see Judge Lustre to inquire why their case
was not scheduled on May 3, at any rate, there is arraignment of their new case filed on
the same date. He responded that he was early at Laguna de Bay Inn on March 23, and
he waited for her at 7:00 A.M. but she did not come. He told her not to fool him,
"masama daw siyang magalit." The June 6 hearing proceeded, that of June 13 was
cancelled at the instance of the accused's lawyer. On June 15, 1995, Thursday, at
around 7:00 A.M., Liwanag went to Judge Lustre in his office because she was told that
our next hearing would be in September despite previous settings. She requested
Judge Lustre to give them monthly hearings, in July and August. He told her that he
would oblige if she would follow his wishes. As he was saying that, he was already
touching her breast. He exposed his penis at told her to perform "fellatio." She refused.
She was then told to return the following day, the same time and he will wait for her.
Liwanag came back on June 16, around 7:00 A.M. As ordered, she proceeded to the
Calamba Church to wait for Judge Lustre. He fetched her from there on board his white
Toyota car and he brought her to Riverview Resort and Sports Complex in Crossing,
Calamba, Laguna. She said she could not refuse because of the threat about our case.
Inside the room at Riverview, he told her there will be a setting for July and August.
Then he undressed himself and ordered her to do the same. She said “I knew I was
selling myself to the devil but our blood money is at stake. It is for the future of my son
and I was willing to do anything for my family. Perhaps I was too stupid to do it, but at
that time, I felt helpless.” He ordered her to perform "fellatio" on him and she obeyed.
There was blood that oozed from his penis. She also saw black rashes on his body,
especially on his legs. Before they left, he told her to see him again on July 10 in his
office. On June 23, 1995, the same thing happened. She went to his office at 7:00 A.M.
Judge Lustre brought her to Riverview Resort and Sports Complex and she was again
ordered to perform "fellatio" on him. The June 28 hearing proceeded. But Liwanag did
not go and see Judge Lustre on July 10 as requested. She just called him and
presented an alibi. He told her to just come the following day, at 7:00 A.M. at Jollibee,
Calamba and he will wait for her. As parting words, he told me not to fool him. After that
incident Liwanag said that “I did not see him on July 11 because I already felt so dirty
and used. I never realized before I was capable of doing such a thing for my family, until
the time came. But I could not take it anymore. On July 27, the hearing proceeded. But
the previous schedules were cancelled and instead hearing was set in November, 1995.
On August 15, 1995 at 7:00 A.M., she went to his office to get an order for the referral of
the specimen signatures of Rowena Chua to the NBI. Again, he kissed her and touched
her. She said she could not refuse for fear of retaliation. She said “I could see that
Judge Paterno H. Lustre is deliberately delaying the prosecution of our cases to prolong
his abusive acts towards me. As can be seen from the transcript of the hearings, he is
not leaning; in our favor. What we are asking only is for the continuous setting of the
trial because we cannot afford a long drawn out proceedings. But instead, he is delaying
the trial. He has even shown hostility towards my husband when he was testifying and
towards my lawyer, allegedly because he was jealous.” She also said that she is not the
only victim of respondent judge as she knows at least two (2) other women who are
similarly situated are being used and abused by him. But they do not want to complain
because of fear and the possible consequence to their cases. 

Apart from the letter and the sworn statement, complainant also sent the Court 11
photographs showing her and respondent together in various places. Five of these were
allegedly taken at the Riverview Resort in Calamba, Laguna. She also submitted a
receipt issued by said resort dated June 23, 1995 and two transcripts of phone
conversations she had with respondent. Respondent's defense is anchored on denial. In
a "2nd Indorsement" he sent to the Court he "strongly denied the charges leveled
against him and dismissed them as "the vile products of (complainant's) malicious and
prejudiced mind." According to him, complainant and her common-law husband thought
of filing charges against him when he "refused to bend to, and accommodate, (their)
haughty and arrogant demands, which is to: hastily schedule, try continuously, finish
and decide arbitrarily within a very short period of time"  the B.P. 22 (Bouncing Checks
Law) cases filed by complainant's husband. The complaint was, according to
respondent, likewise prompted by respondent's refusal to accept complainant's offer to
"reward" him with five percent of the P3.5 million her husband seeks to recover.
Respondent claimed that he could not have been in his chambers as early as 7:00 in
the morning as alleged by complainant since he usually arrives for work some five to ten
minutes before 8:00 in the morning. Moreover, he said the door to his room is never
locked — thus, the impossibility of him engaging in illicit sexual conduct within its
confines — since the only comfort room in the courtroom is inside his room and anyone
who wants to use it may enter his room freely. He also further pointed out that at age
67, with a heart ailment and diabetes, "(s)ex is beyond (his) physical capacity."  He said
he is "no longer capable of what ordinary men indulge in, lest (he) die in the attempt."  
He sought the dismissal of the complaint filed against him. Respondent submitted the
following documentary evidence: (1) affidavit executed by Rodelio A. Alcaraz, a utility
worker, stating that respondent usually arrives at the office at 7:45 in the morning; (2)
affidavit executed by Atty. Benjamin A. Alonzo, Sr., a private practitioner based in
Calamba, attesting to respondent's fine work ethics and moral uprightness; and (3)
certification from Dr. Elmer S. Sayoc stating that respondent is being treated for
coronary artery diseases, atrial fibrillation, and diabetes mellitus.  

The SC resolved to refer the matter to Judge Norberto Geraldez, Executive Judge,
Regional Trial Court, Calamba, Laguna, for investigation, report and recommendation.
The SC also ordered respondent to inhibit himself from hearing the B.P. 22 cases filed
by complainant's husband.

Judge Geraldez requested that he be allowed to inhibit himself from hearing the case
because complainant raised the matter of his friendship with respondent.  The SC
however, denied his request and directed him to resolve the case with dispatch.

Judge Geraldez recommended dismissal of the complaint against respondent since

complainant failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He ruled that: In the
B.P. 22 cases pending before Judge Lustre, Jose Zafra was never assured that he
could recover the amount of P3.5 million even if the sexual demands were satisfied.
Jose Zafra and Ms. Liwanag were aware of this. Consequently, it is surprising why the
complainant, no matter how desperate she may have been, would submit to oral sex.
And, why Jose Zafra allowed it. There is a rather large disparity in the value of the "B.P.
22" cases vis-a-vis the seriousness and mess of the sexual demand. Ms. Liwanag's
allegations are beyond comprehension. It borders on the very credibility of the sexual
allegations. This is especially true with respect to the allegations of oral sex with its
blood secretions. And, according to her she did it more than once. If indeed there were
"blood secretions" the first time, the claim of a second time is beyond relief. Judge
Geraldez concluded that the evidence presented by complainant is not credible in itself.
Moreover, Judge Geraldez pointed out that complainant merely relied on the
photographs showing her and respondent together, which, however, do not establish
the acts complained of. Despite having the opportunity to do so, according to the report,
complainant failed to testify to substantiate her claims, thereby depriving respondent of
his right to cross-examine her.

The Court thereafter referred the case to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for
evaluation, report, and recommendation. The OCA took a position directly opposite that
of Judge Geraldez.The OCA noted that: we cannot help discerning here an effort to
gloss over a charge against respondent which the investigating judge himself admitted
to be serious. His investigative work and his subsequent report reveal a perfunctory
treatment and analysis of the submissions of the parties, particularly the complainant
herein, and an egregious misapplication of the law and jurisprudence.The OCA
recommended that the case be formally docketed as an administrative complaint and
that respondent be dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits
and with prejudice to reemployment in any branch of the government, including
government-owned and — controlled corporations.

Issue: WON respondent judge is guilty for sexually assaulting Liwanag for the price of
speedily and efficiently trying their case

Held:

As a rule, proof beyond reasonable doubt is not necessary in

deciding administrative cases. Only substantial evidence is required, as clearly provided
for under Rule 133 of the Revised Rules of Evidence. The SC ruled that there is enough
evidence on record to sufficiently establish complainant's case against
respondent.Respondent avers that the real intention of complainant in filing the
complaint — which she has denied — is to extort money from him as she allegedly
made an "outrageous demand"  for P3.5 million to settle the case. The SC was not
convinced, however, that respondent's conduct in this case is entirely blameless, nor
that complainant's alleged intent would excuse respondent's wrongdoing.It is true that
the pictures do not show respondent and complainant actually engaging in any form of
sexual congress. However, this is understandable since by their very nature, such acts
are not proper subjects of photographs. Often, as in this case, what is available to us is
only the narration of the parties involved. Respondent denies that the photographs were
taken at Riverview. He took pictures of the resort himself to prove his contention. He
said his pictures are different from those of complainant's. The SC noted, however, that
respondent does not deny that he is the one appearing with complainant in the
photographs. He conveniently testified that somebody else had posed for the
photograph, but this is obviously an afterthought. Respondent made this assertion
almost a year after complainant filed her complaint. He could have done it as early as
October 1995 in his comment to complainant's charges. If the pictures were not taken at
Riverview, where were they taken and why was respondent with complainant at that
time? If, indeed, there was a legitimate reason for complainant and respondent to be
seen together at the time and place depicted in the photographs, respondent would
have wasted no time explaining where they were taken and under what circumstances,
in order to extricate himself from his present predicament. This, he failed to do. The
reason for this, we believe, is that he could not simply offer any plausible explanation
why he was seen with complainant coming out of what is apparently a private room. As
for complainant's failure to testify on her own behalf, this is of no moment.
Complainant's affidavit stands in lieu of her testimony; the investigating judge even had
her re-subscribe and re-affirm her sworn statement and let the same be adopted as part
of complainant's evidence. Complainant could have been cross-examined based on her
affidavit. That she was not cross-examined by respondent is not her fault but
respondent's. As the records now stand, we are constrained to agree with the Court
Administrator's assessment that respondent has failed to live up to the high standard of
conduct required of members of the bench. He grossly violated his duty to uphold the
integrity of the judiciary and to avoid impropriety not only in his public but in his private
life as well.  All to the grave prejudice of the administration of justice, indeed. We are not
in accord with the OCA's recommendation, however, as regards forfeiture
of all retirement benefits due respondent. We note that implementation of this penalty,
while directed at respondent, might adversely affect innocent members of his family,
who are dependent on him and his retirement gratuity. It is our considered view that,
given the circumstances of this case, the maximum fine of P40,000.00 would be
sufficient penalty.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, we hereby find respondent GUILTY of gross

misconduct. As he has already retired from the service and thus could no longer be
dismissed nor suspended, we hereby order that a FINE of P40,000.00 be imposed
upon him, to be deducted from his retirement benefits. Further, he is hereby
barred from any employment in all branches of the government including
government-owned and -controlled corporations.