View full case

LUALHATI M. LIWANAG v. JUDGE PATERNO H. LUSTRE

FACTS:

Complainant Lualhati M. Liwanag filed a letter to the Court requesting the removal of Judge Paterno H. Lustre for "gross immorality and grave misconduct unbecoming of his profession." She alleged that the respondent sexually molested her during their meetings. The complainant's husband had previously filed cases against Judge Lustre, and the case was assigned to the Municipal Trial Court of Calamba, Laguna, where he presided. The complainant stated that she visited Judge Lustre to inquire about the progress of the case and requested him to schedule hearings and order the arraignment of the accused. She claimed that during one meeting, the judge touched her inappropriately, and during another meeting, he threatened her and molested her again. The complainant also alleged that Judge Lustre intentionally prolonged the prosecution of their cases to continue his abusive acts. She further added that at least two other women were similarly victimized but were afraid to come forward. In his defense, Judge Lustre denied the charges and accused the complainant of having a malicious and prejudiced mind.

ISSUES:

  1. The issue in this case is whether or not the complaint against the respondent judge should be dismissed for lack of evidence.

  2. Whether the photographs submitted by the complainant are sufficient evidence to establish the acts complained of.

  3. Whether the respondent's denial and alternative explanation for the photographs are credible.

  4. Whether the charges against the respondent are products of complainant's vindictiveness.

  5. Whether complainant's failure to testify on her own behalf is of any significance.

RULING:

  1. The Court, in this case, accepted the recommendation of Judge Geraldez and dismissed the complaint against the respondent judge. The Court found that the complainant failed to establish the guilt of the respondent beyond reasonable doubt. Judge Geraldez's report highlighted the lack of credibility of the complainant's allegations, stating that the evidence presented by the complainant is not credible in itself. The Court also noted the disparity between the value of the cases involved and the seriousness of the sexual demands made by the respondent.

  2. Yes. The photographs submitted by the complainant, showing her and the respondent together in various places, are sufficient evidence to establish the acts complained of. The photographs do not need to show the actual sexual acts, as such acts are not proper subjects of photographs. What is important is the narration of the parties involved, which in this case, is supported by the photographs.

  3. No. The respondent's denial and alternative explanation for the photographs are not credible. He does not deny that he is the one appearing with the complainant in the photographs and only offered an alternative explanation almost a year after the complaint was filed. If there was a legitimate reason for their presence in the photographs, the respondent should have explained it earlier.

  4. The court finds that the respondent failed to offer a plausible explanation for being seen with the complainant coming out of a private room. The claim of vindictiveness raises more questions than it answers and goes against human nature. Thus, the court deems it unlikely and concludes that the respondent's actions were not products of complainant's vindictiveness.

  5. The court considers complainant's failure to testify on her own behalf of no moment. Her affidavit stands in lieu of her testimony and the investigating judge had her re-subscribe and re-affirm her sworn statement. The failure of the respondent to cross-examine complainant based on her affidavit is not her fault but the respondent's.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Credibility of evidence is essential in establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

  • Disparity between the value of cases and the seriousness of demands can affect the credibility of the allegations.

  • The dismissal of a complaint requires the establishment of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

  • Proof beyond reasonable doubt is not necessary in deciding administrative cases. Only substantial evidence is required.

  • Substantial evidence is the amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.

  • The credibility of the parties and their testimonies are important in assessing the evidence.

  • Denial, when not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is viewed with disfavor and is considered self-serving.

  • Members of the judiciary are held to a high standard of conduct and must uphold the integrity of the judiciary and avoid impropriety in both public and private life.

  • The administration of justice must enhance rather than erode the public's faith and trust in the judiciary.

  • The penalty provided for in Rule 140, Section 10 of the Rules of Court for gross misconduct by a judge is a fine in the maximum amount.

  • Imposition of penalties should take into consideration the circumstances of the case and the potential adverse impact on innocent family members.