Susan Reyes vs.

Judge Manuel Duque RTC Las Piñas

● Susan charged Judge Manuel with Impropriety, Corruption & Gross Misconduct.
○ Susan was a party-in-intervention in Land Reg Case (PSB petition for Issuance of a Writ of Possession over (2TCT) Properties)
filed by PSB against sps Carolyn & Nak San Choi.
● RTC: granted issuance of writ of possession in favor of PSB & ordered sps Choi & those claiming rights to vacate properties in
BF Resort Village, Talon 2, Las Piñas.
○ Susan filed "Petition to Lift & Set Aside Writ & Quashal of Vacate Notice, bc she bought property from Sps Choi & was in
actual possession w/ PSB’s full knowledge.
● Hearing: Susan’s lawyer Atty. Herminio Ubana introduced her to Judge Manuel who gave Susan 30 days to settle matters
with PSB.
○ Susan was unable to re-negotiate with PSB.
● 12’07, Susan received a phone call from Judge Manuel who instructed her to go "to his house & bring some money so he can
deny the pending motion to break open.”
○ she did not have the money yet, she told Judge Manuel that she would see him the following day as her allotment
might arrive by that time.
● Next day, when her allotment arrived, Susan went to PNB Cubao QC to withdraw ₱20K
○ w/ secretary, & driver to Manuel’s house (No. 9 CRM Corazon, BF Almanza, Las Piñas)
■ The son of Judge Manuel opened the gate.
● Manuel demanded ₱100K Susan gave him ₱20K & asked for time for the balance.
○ After a week, Atty. Herminio called Susan telling her Judge Manuel was asking for her & waiting for the balance he
demanded.
● 12/21/07, Susan went to the house of Judge Manuel with ₱18,000 on hand.
○ Judge Manuel scolded her for not bringing the whole amount of ₱80,000.
■ Susan explained she had difficulty raising the amount.
○ Manuel locked main door of his house & asked Susan to step into his office.
■ Judge Manuel pointed to a calendar posted on the wall & pointed to December 26 as the date when she should
complete the amount.
○ All of a sudden, Judge Manuel held the waist of Susan, embraced & kissed her.
■ Susan tried to struggle & free herself.
○ Judge Manuel raised her skirt, opened her blouse & sucked her breasts.
■ He touched her private parts & attempted to have sexual intercourse with Susan.
○ Susan shouted for help but the TV was too loud.
■ Desperate, Susan appealed: kung gusto mo huwag dito. Sa hotel sasama ako sayo
■ Manuel suddenly stopped & ordered Susan to fix her hair.
● Judge Manuel: since complaint was filed after he retired 2/21/08, he was no longer under the jurisdiction of OCA;
chargeswere "fabricated, false & malicious."
● OCA: Susan actually filed 4 identical complaints.
1. 1/16/08 duly subscribed on 23 January 2008.
2. 2/20/08 Susan was directed to comply with requirement of verification & filed verified complaints with the Office of the Chief
Justice & OCA.
3. 3/12/08, Susan filed verified complaint with OCA = reiteration of her previous complaints.
● OCA’s jurisdiction during the filing was not lost by the mere fact that Judge Manuel had ceased to be in office during the
pendency of the case.
○ case was referred to a CA Justice for investigation, report & reco.
● Graft & corruption: Susan presented photocopies of ₱1,000 bills to prove Judge Manuel demanded & received money from her in
consideration of a favorable ruling.
○ Investigating Justice found no compelling evidence to corroborate Susan’ accusation as it was doubtful whether these
were same bills used to pay off Manuel.
● Impropriety & gross misconduct: act of Judge Manuel in embracing & kissing Susan, sucking her breasts & touching her most
intimate parts were certainly acts of lewdness that were downright obscene, detestable, & unwelcome.
○ established by substantial evidence.
■ Susan’ description of the sexual assault could not be deemed as attempted rape.
● Investigating Justice: Guilty of impropriety & gross misconduct constituting violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct &
₱40,000 fine
○ Court Administrator Report: compulsorily retired 2/21/08. Fined ₱40,000
■ conduct of Judge Manuel bore the marks of impropriety & immorality.
■ actions fell short of the exacting standards for members of the judiciary.
■ failed to behave in a manner that would promote confidence in the judiciary.
ISSUE: Guilty of Impropriety & Gross Misconduct = Fined P40,000 from retirement benefits.
● Records: Susan filed 4 similar complaints against Judge Manuel.
○ 1/18/08 complaint addressed CJ Puno subscribed on 2/19/08 was received by OCA on 2/20/08 & by Office of the Chief Justice
1 day before the date of retirement
● Judge Manuel was "inadvertently sent" a complaint copy filed & received on 3/12/08
○ The filing of similar & identical complaints on different dates was due to the directive of the OCA requiring that the complaint
be "verified" or that the "original copy of the verified complaint" be filed.
■ clear Susan filed her intended complaint before Judge Manuel retired. Consequently, the Court no doubt has jurisdiction
over this administrative case.
● Graft & corruption: insufficient evidence to sustain Susan’ allegation that Judge Manuel demanded & received money from
her in consideration of a favorable ruling = dismissed.
○ Impropriety & gross misconduct: established, & Judge Manuel admitted, that Susan went to his house.
■ Substantial evidence also pointed to Judge Manuel’s liability for impropriety & gross misconduct when he sexually
assaulted Susan.
○ There is no need to detail again the lewd acts of Judge Manuel.
■ The Investigating Justice’s narration was sufficient & thorough.
 ○ The Investigating Justice likewise observed that Judge Manuel merely attempted to destroy the credibility of Susan when he
insinuated that she could be a "woman of ill repute or a high class prostitute" or one whose "moral value is at its
lowest level."
○ However, no judge has a right to solicit sexual favors from a party litigant even from a woman of loose morals.
● Conduct themselves as to be beyond reproach & suspicion, & to be free from any appearance of impropriety in their
personal behavior, not only in the discharge of their official duties but also in their everyday lives.
○ For no position exacts a greater demand on the moral righteousness & uprightness of an individual than a seat in the
Judiciary.
● Judges are mandated to maintain good moral character & are at all times expected to observe irreproachable behavior so as not to
outrage public decency.
○ magistrate is judged not only by his official acts but also by his private morals, to the extent that such private morals are
externalized.
■ should not only possess proficiency in law but should likewise possess moral integrity for the people look up to him as a
virtuous & upright man.
● Judges should avoid impropriety & the appearance of impropriety in all of their activities.
○ conduct themselves in a way that is consistent with the dignity of the judicial office.
● Judges, like any other citizen, are entitled to freedom of expression, belief, association & assembly, but in exercising such rights,
they should always conduct themselves in such a manner as to preserve the dignity of the judicial office & the impartiality &
independence of the judiciary.
● Conduct of Judge Manuel fell short of exacting standards for Judiciary members
○ failed to behave in a manner that would promote confidence in the judiciary.
● Considering that a judge is a visible representation of the law & of justice, he is naturally expected to be the epitome of integrity &
should be beyond reproach.
○ Judge Manuel’s conduct indubitably bore the marks of impropriety & immorality.
■ failed to live up to the high moral standards of the judiciary & even transgressed the ordinary norms of decency of
society.
○ Had Judge Manuel not retired, misconduct would’ve merited his dismissal.