View full case

RE: ANONYMOUS LETTER-COMPLAINT

FACTS:

An anonymous letter-complaint was filed against Associate Justice Normandie B. Pizarro (Justice Pizarro) of the Court of Appeals (CA), accusing him of habitual gambling in casinos, "selling" decisions, and engaging in an illicit relationship. The letter-complaint was initially filed with the Office of the Ombudsman and was later referred to the Supreme Court.

The complainant alleged that Justice Pizarro was a gambling addict who would lose millions of pesos in casinos daily and implied that he sold his cases to support his gambling addiction. The complainant also claimed that Justice Pizarro had an illicit relationship, stating that he bought his mistress a house and lot, a condominium unit, and expensive vehicles. The complainant further alleged that Justice Pizarro and his mistress traveled abroad to shop and gamble in casinos.

Attached to the anonymous letter-complaint were photographs showing Justice Pizarro sitting at a casino table in the Midori Hotel and Casino in Clark, Pampanga.

On November 21, 2017, the Supreme Court required Justice Pizarro to file his comment on the accusations. In his comment filed on December 8, 2017, Justice Pizarro admitted to appearing in the photographs but claimed that they were taken when he accompanied a friend, playing in a parlor game fashion without big stakes or revealing their identities. He also admitted to playing at the casino in 2009 but stated that it was an indiscretion committed because he had learned he had terminal cancer.

Justice Pizarro vehemently denied having a mistress and argued that the accusations against him were baseless and intended to destroy his character. He also pointed out that no administrative case had been filed against him in the past seven years, and the few cases filed did not involve corruption and he was absolved in all of them.

The sole issue before the Court is whether Justice Pizarro is guilty of the accusations against him and may be held administratively liable.

ISSUES:

  1. What is the meaning of the term "government officials connected directly with the operation of the government or any of its agencies" as used in the prohibition on gambling in casinos?

  2. Did Justice Pizarro, as a magistrate of the CA, violate the prohibition on gambling by gambling in a casino?

RULING:

  1. The term "government officials connected directly with the operation of the government or any of its agencies" refers to any person employed by the government whose tasks involve the performance and exercise of any of the functions and powers of the government or any agency thereof, as conferred on them by law, without any intervening agency. It includes government officers who perform government functions on their own judgment or discretion, in accordance with Section 2(14) of E.O. No. 292.

  2. Justice Pizarro, as a magistrate of the CA, is a government official directly involved in the administration of justice. By gambling in a casino, Justice Pizarro violated the prohibition on gambling in casinos as provided under Section 14(4)(a) of P.D. No. 1869.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Complaints against judges and justices must be accompanied by supporting evidence to protect them from unfounded charges. Complainants bear the burden of proving the allegations in their complaints by substantial evidence.

  • The Court must observe due process and strictly require substantial evidence to prove charges against a member of the Judiciary.

  • The Court must protect its members from baseless or unreasonable charges that may adversely affect their duties and functions.

  • Prohibitions against gambling or being seen in gambling places, such as casinos, apply to judges of inferior courts and court personnel. Justices of collegial courts are not covered unless expressly included in the provision.

  • The term "government officials connected directly with the operation of the government or any of its agencies" is defined to include government officers who perform the functions of the government on their own judgment or discretion.

  • In the absence of legislative intent to the contrary, words and phrases used in a statute should be given their plain, ordinary, and common usage meaning.

  • The term "operation" may mean "doing or performing action" or "administration."

  • Violations of the prohibition on gambling in casinos may be considered as violations of the Canons of Judicial Ethics, particularly those regarding avoidance of appearance of impropriety and infractions of the law.

  • Violations of the prohibition on gambling in casinos may also be considered as violations of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, particularly the canons on integrity.

  • Integrity is essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office.

  • Judges should conduct themselves in a way that is consistent with the dignity of the judicial office.

  • Judges must avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all their activities.

  • Judges should promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

  • Personal behavior of judges, even outside the court, must be beyond reproach.

  • A judge's conduct should be above reproach and perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable observer.