SECOND DIVISION

[A.M. No. MTJ-04-1563. September 8, 2004.]

(Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 02-1207-MTJ)

LUCILA TAN , complainant, vs . Judge MAXWEL S. ROSETE , respondent.

DECISION

PUNO , J : p

Lucila Tan led the instant complaint against Judge Maxwel S. Rosete, former
Acting Presiding Judge, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 58, San Juan, Metro Manila, 1 for
violation of Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court and the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act (Republic Act No. 3019).
The complaint alleged that Lucila Tan was the private complainant in Criminal Case
No. 59440 and Criminal Case No. 66120, both entitled People of the Philippines vs.
Alfonso Pe Sy and pending before Branch 58, Metropolitan Trial Court of San Juan, Metro
Manila, then presided by respondent judge. Before the cases were decided, respondent
judge allegedly sent a member of his staff to talk to complainant. They met at Sangkalan
Restaurant along Scout Albano, near Timog Avenue in Quezon City. The staff member told
her that respondent was asking for P150,000.00 in exchange for the non-dismissal of the
cases. She was shown copies of respondent judge's Decisions in Criminal Cases Nos.
59440 and 66120, both still unsigned, dismissing the complaints against the accused. She
was told that respondent judge would reverse the disposition of the cases as soon as she
remits the amount demanded. The staff member allowed complainant to keep the copy of
the draft decision in Criminal Case No. 59440. Complainant, however, did not accede to
respondent's demand because she believed that she had a very strong case, well
supported by evidence. The criminal cases were eventually dismissed by respondent
judge. 2
Respondent judge, in his Comment, denied the allegations of complainant. He
instead stated that it was complainant who attempted to bribe him in exchange for a
favorable decision. She even tried to delay and to derail the promulgation of the decisions
in Criminal Cases Nos. 59440 and 66120. Complainant also sought the intervention of then
San Juan Mayor, Jinggoy Estrada, to obtain judgment in her favor. Mayor Estrada allegedly
talked to him several times to ask him to help complainant. The former even called him
over the phone when he was in New Zealand, persuading him to hold in abeyance the
promulgation of the Decisions in said cases. But he politely declined, telling him that there
was no su cient evidence to convict the accused, and moreover, he had already turned
over the Decisions to Judge Quilatan for promulgation. Respondent further stated that
complainant kept bragging about her close relations with Mayor Estrada who was her
neighbor in Greenhills, San Juan, and even insinuated that she could help him get appointed
to a higher position provided he decides the suits in her favor. Respondent judge also
claimed that complainant offered to give cash for the downpayment of a car he was
planning to buy. But he refused the offer. Finally, respondent judge denied that a member
of his staff gave complainant a copy of his draft decision in Criminal Case No. 59440. He
said that he had entrusted to Judge Quilatan his Decisions in Criminal Cases Nos. 59440
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 and 66120 before he left for New Zealand on study leave. Thus, he asserted that it was
impossible for him to thereafter change the resolution of the cases and it was likewise
impossible for any member of his staff to give complainant copies of said Decisions. 3
In a resolution dated December 2, 2002, the Court referred the complaint to the
Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City for investigation, report and
recommendation. 4
First Vice Executive Judge Edwin A. Villasor conducted several hearings on the
administrative case. Only complainant Lucila Tan testi ed for her side. She presented as
documentary evidence the copy of the unsigned Decision in Criminal Case No. 59440
dated February 23, 2001 which was allegedly handed to her by a member of respondent
judge's staff. 5 Respondent judge, on the other hand, presented four (4) witnesses:
Jose na Ramos, Rodolfo Cea (Buboy), Fernando B. Espuerta, and Joyce Trinidad
Hernandez. His documentary evidence consists of the a davits of his witnesses, 6 copy of
the Motion for Reconsideration in Criminal Case No. 59440, 7 and various documents
composed of the machine copy of the Order of Arrest in Criminal Case No. 117219,
machine copy of the letter dated December 29, 1997, machine copy of Certi cation dated
Nov. 13, 2000, front and dorsal sides of Check No. QRH-0211804, Bank Statement dated
March 31, 1998, Stop Payment Order dated April 6, 1998, Current Account Inquiry, and
Transaction Record, which documents were allegedly given by complainant to
respondent's witness, Fernando B. Espuerta. 8
The Investigating Judge summarized the testimonies of the witnesses as follows:
COMPLAINANT'S VERSION:

1. LUCILA TAN

Complainant Lucila Tan testi ed that she knew Respondent Judge

because she had a case in Branch 58, MeTC, San Juan, Metro Manila. She
alleged that, in September 1998, she led two cases involving B.P. 22 and Other
Deceits with the Prosecutor's O ce in Pasig. After resolution, the cases were led
in the MeTC, San Juan. One case went to Branch 57 and the other one went to
Branch 58, where Respondent Judge Rosete was the Presiding Judge. Judge
Quilatan was the Presiding Judge of Branch 57. Upon advise of a friend, she
moved for consolidation and the two cases were transferred to Judge Quilatan in
Branch 57. Subsequently, in view of the Motion for Inhibition led by
Complainant's lawyer, Judge Quilatan inhibited himself and the two cases were
transferred to the sala of Respondent Judge Rosete (TSN, pp. 9–16, Hearing of
March 3, 2003). After several hearings, the Clerk of Court, named Joyce, called up
the Complainant and advised her to talk to San Juan Mayor Jinggoy Estrada to
seek for (sic) assistance. Joyce gave her the phone number of the O ce of the
Mayor (TSN, pages 17–18, Hearing of March 3, 2003). Complainant then called
up the O ce of the Mayor but her call was intercepted by Josie, the Mayor's
Secretary. When she told Josie why she called, the latter asked her if she wanted
to meet the Judge and when Complainant answered in the a rmative, Josie
made arrangements for Complainant to meet the Judge (TSN, pages 19–21,
Hearing of March 3, 2003). Complainant called up the O ce of the Mayor
sometime in November or late October 2000 and she met the Judge on November
10. She, Josie and Respondent Judge met at the Cravings Restaurant in Wilson,
San Juan (TSN, page 22, Hearing of March 3, 2003). During the meeting,
Complainant "told the Judge regarding this matter, how this happened and that
he will convince the Accused to pay me as soon as possible" (TSN, page 23,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 Hearing of March 3, 2003). When she went to the restroom for a few minutes,
Respondent Judge and Josie were left alone. After she came back, they went
home. On the way home, Josie told her to give something to [the] Judge, "Sabi
niya magbigay tayo ng kaunti para bumilis iyong kaso mo" (TSN, page 24,
Hearing of March 3, 2003). At rst, Josie did not mention any amount but when
the Complainant asked her how much, the former mentioned Fifty Thousand
Pesos (P50,000.00). Complainant asked for a lesser amount, Twenty Thousand
Pesos (P20,000.00) (TSN, page 25, Hearing of March 3, 2003). When Josie
agreed, she sent the amount of P20,000.00 to Josie through her driver after two
days (TSN, pages 26–27, Hearing of March 3, 2003). When Josie received the
money, the Clerk of Court, Joyce, also called her (Complainant) on that date. The
Clerk of Court asked her if she sent money. At rst, Complainant denied it but the
Clerk of Court said that Josie went there and there was money in the drawer (TSN,
pages 28–29, Hearing of March 3, 2003). After that, several hearings were on-
going, and before the resolution, Joyce called up the Complainant again around
February 2001. Complainant was in Baguio when Joyce called saying that she
had an important thing to tell to (sic) the Complainant. After Complainant got
back to Manila, Joyce called her again and said that she will show Complainant
something. When they were in Complainant's car in San Juan, Joyce showed
Complainant two unsigned Decisions of the case[s]. After reading the Decisions,
Complainant saw that the cases were dismissed and that it will be dismissed if
she will not accede to Joyce's request ( TSN, pages 30–33, Hearing of March 3,
2003). Complainant claimed that Joyce asked for Php150,000.00 for each case.
"Sabi niya it [was] for Judge daw, kailangan daw ni Judge because he is leaving
at that time" (TSN, page 34, Hearing of March 3, 2003). Complainant identi ed
the copy of the Decision in Criminal Case No. 59440 for Other Deceits, dated 23
February 2001, which was marked as Exhibit "A" for the Complainant ( TSN, pages
35–38, Hearing of March 3, 2003). Complainant further alleged "Sabi niya, if I will
accede to that request of P150,000.00 for each case then they will (sic) going to
reverse the Decision" and "Si Judge daw" will reverse the Decision. Complainant
met with Joyce around February 2001 (TSN, page 39, Hearing of March 3, 2003).
Complainant further claimed that Joyce told her to go to Mayor because he is a
friend of the Judge. Complainant went again to the O ce of the Mayor to seek
the Mayor's help and she met the Mayor at his O ce in San Juan. The Mayor
called up the Judge but he was not around so the Clerk of Court, Joyce, was
called. Joyce went to the O ce of the Mayor and when she arrived, she said that
the Judge was out of the country (TSN, pages 40–41, Hearing of March 3, 2003).
The Mayor asked for the phone number of Respondent Judge Rosete, which
Joyce gave. Mayor Estrada was able to get in touch with the Judge. While the
Mayor was talking in (sic) the phone with the Judge, Complainant was in front of
the Mayor (TSN, pages 42–43, Hearing of March 3, 2003). Complainant heard the
Mayor "because his voice is very loud." He said, " Judge, Saan ka? Sabi niya New
Zealand. When were you coming back? I do not know what is the answer and
then he said, you help my friend naswindler siya, pabilisin mo ang kaso niya para
matapos na kasi matagal na iyan" (TSN, page 43, Hearing of March 23, 2003).
After that they left the O ce of the Mayor and Complainant was not able to
approach Mayor Estrada again. Since the Complainant was still carrying the
Decision, and being afraid that it will be promulgated already, she sought the
advi[c]e of her friends. The Complainant showed the decision to the Prosecutor in
San Juan at that time (TSN, pages 44–45, Hearing of March 3, 2003). The
Prosecutor told the Complainant that she is going to meet with the Judge when
he comes back from New Zealand. Complainant testi ed that, sometime in April,
in Sangkalan, Quezon City, a night life restaurant, she met Respondent Judge
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 Rosete. She was with two (2) Prosecutors. When she arrived at Sangkalan at
about 8:30 in the evening, Judge Rosete was already in the company of several
men whom she got to know as Fernan and Buboy (TSN, pages 46–48, Hearing of
March 3, 2003). After eating and drinking, the Complainant left at around 10:30 in
the evening. While they were inside, Complainant claimed that she did not say
anything at all and it was the Prosecutor who talked in her behalf. She was the
one who paid all the bills which amounted to Six Thousand Pesos (P6,000.00).
When Complainant left, only they, three (3) girls, left while the Judge and his
company were still there drinking. While Complainant was waiting for her car
outside, a man came over from behind (TSN, pages 49–50, Hearing of March 3,
2003). Complainant did not know him but she asked the Prosecutor later after the
man left. The Complainant said that the man asked if he could have an advance,
which she understood as a payment, and she told the Prosecutor. Complainant
heard the Prosecutor say that she already talked to the Judge. The man left and
went back inside the restaurant (TSN, page 51, Hearing of March 3, 2003).
Complainant said that when she did not give the money she was still scared
because there will already be a promulgation and she did not know whether it will
be in her behalf (sic) or not. Complainant did not give anything aside from the
P20,000.00 because her case was very strong and she had all the papers and
evidence and that she promised them that she will give them after she was (sic)
able to collect all the debts. Complainant did not know the actual date of the
promulgation but somebody from the O ce of Respondent Judge called her up
in her house and told her not to go to the promulgation. When Complainant asked
why, " Sabi niya baka mapaiyak daw ako kasi alam na daw nila ang decision.
Sabi niya ako na lang ang magdedeliver ng case ng promulgation." She received
the decision when she sent her driver to pick it up. The caller said that the
decision was unfavorable to her (TSN, pages 52–55, Hearing of March 3, 2003).

RESPONDENT'S VERSION:

1. JOSEFINA RAMOS
She testi ed that she was the Private Secretary of Mayor Jinggoy Estrada,
the former Mayor of San Juan, Metro Manila, since he was Vice Mayor of San
Juan. In 2000 and 2001, she was already the Secretary of Mayor Jinggoy (TSN,
page 7, Hearing of September 9, 2003). She met Lucila Tan when the latter went
to the Mayor's O ce together with Tita Pat, the sister of President Estrada, but
she could no longer remember the year. Lucila Tan went to the O ce, together
with Tita Pat, and they were seeking the help of Mayor Jinggoy because they
have a case. She did not know the case because they were talking to Mayor
Jinggoy. She could no longer remember how many times Lucila Tan went to the
O ce of Mayor Jinggoy Estrada. She did not know what Lucila Tan wanted from
Mayor Jinggoy Estrada or how close Lucila Tan was to him ( TSN, pages 8–11,
Hearing of September 9, 2003). She denied that she met Lucila Tan at the
Cravings Restaurant and that she suggested to Lucila Tan to give Fifty Thousand
Pesos (P50,000.00) to Judge Rosete to speed up or facilitate her cases but that
Lucila Tan agreed for only Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00). She claimed
that she did not know what Lucila Tan was talking about regarding the money.
There was no occasion that she suggested or even intimated to Lucila Tan the
idea of giving money to Judge Rosete. She denied that she met with Lucila Tan
and Respondent Judge at Cravings Restaurant along Wilson Street in San Juan,
Metro Manila. She identi ed her Sworn Statement, subscribed on February 5,
2003, which was marked as Exhibit "1" (TSN, pages 12–16, Hearing of September
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 9, 2003). She denied that Lucila Tan gave anything to her ( TSN, page 17, Hearing
of September 9, 2003).
2. RODOLFO CEA

He testi ed that his acquaintances usually call him "Buboy" and for about
two years or more he had no occupation. Two years before, he was a Clerk III at
Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 58, San Juan. He knows Lucila Tan because,
when he "was still working as Clerk in San Juan, she approached me and asked if
I can introduce her to Judge Rosete and eventually asked for a favorable decision
against her case." He could not remember anymore when that was because "it
was a long time ago" ( TSN, pages 6–7, Hearing of September 22, 2003). It was
when he was still with the MeTC, Branch 58, San Juan, Metro Manila. He met
Lucila Tan at the corridor of the Metropolitan Trial Court when she approached
him and asked if he can introduce her to Judge Rosete. He agreed to introduce
Lucila Tan to Judge Rosete but he was not able to actually introduce Lucila Tan
to Judge Rosete "because aside from the introduction, she wants me to ask
Judge Rosete for a favorable decision against (sic) her case and I told her that
Judge Rosete don't ( sic) like his staff (to) indulge on that kind of transaction"
(TSN, pages 8–9, Hearing of September 22, 2003). As far as he knows, the
meeting he had with Lucila Tan in the corridor of the Court in San Juan was "the
rst and the last time." When asked about the claim of Lucila Tan that he
approached her and demanded from her a sum of money to represent an advance
payment for a favorable decision in her cases then pending before Judge Rosete,
he answered "I don't know about that, sir." ( TSN, page 10, Hearing of September
22, 2003.) He identi ed the Sworn Statement, subscribed on February 6, 2003,
and con rmed and a rmed the truthfulness of the contents of the A davit,
which was marked as Exhibit "2" (TSN, pages 11–12, Hearing of September 22,
2003). He denied that he met the Complainant at Sangkalan Restaurant around
8:30 in the evening of an unspeci ed date ( TSN, page 13, Hearing of September
22, 2003).
3. FERNANDO B. ESPUERTA

He testi ed that he is a government employee employed at the Supreme

Court with the position Budget Officer III since November 9, 1981. His first job was
Casual and he became Budget O cer in 1997 ( TSN, page 46, Hearing of
September 22, 2003). He recalled having met Lucila Tan sometime just before
Christmas in October or November 2000. The rst time he saw Lucila Tan was in
a restaurant in Quezon City where she was introduced to him by Fiscal Reyes. He
went to the restaurant alone. He was invited by Judge Rosete because they had
not been together for a long time and they were long time friends. They ate at the
restaurant. When he arrived, Judge Rosete and Buboy were already there. They
stayed in the restaurant until 11:00 [eleven] o'clock in the evening ( TSN, pages
47–49, Hearing of September 22, 2003). He met Lucila Tan in that restaurant
when Fiscal Reyes pointed him to Lucila Tan as Fernan of the Supreme Court.
When he arrived there, Buboy and Judge Rosete were already there. Later, the
three (3) girls arrived, namely: Fiscal Reyes, Lucila Tan and the sister of the Fiscal
(TSN, page 50, Hearing of September 22, 2003). They ordered and ate but they
were in a separate table. He recalled that Judge Rosete paid for their bill because
he saw him get a credit card and sign something. He did not know about Mrs. Tan
but he saw Judge Rosete sign and give to the waiter. The incident where he met
Lucila Tan in the restaurant in Quezon City came before the incident when she
went to his O ce ( TSN, pages 51–52, Hearing of September 22, 2003). He could
not remember the month when Lucila Tan went to his O ce but he remembers
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 that it was nearing Christmas in 2000. "Pumunta siya sa akin parang may
ipinakiusap siya sa akin, katunayan nandito po dala ko." Lucila Tan asked him to
help her in her case with Alfonso Sy. " Meron siyang inalok sa akin. Sabi bibigyan
niya ako ng three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) para iabot kay Judge
Rosete. Ang sagot ko nga sa kanya, hindi ganun ang aking kaibigan. Matagal na
kaming magkaibigan niyan noong nagpapractice pa yan. Iyon ang sagot ko sa
kanya." He told Judge Rosete about that and the latter got mad at him. In their
second meeting, Lucila Tan gave him papers. He presented a Motion for
Reconsideration in Criminal Case No. 59440, which was marked as Exhibit "3"
(TSN, pages 53–56, Hearing of September 22, 2003). He presented the papers
actually given to him by Lucila Tan. He claimed that the xerox copy was the exact
same document given to him by Lucila Tan when she went to his O ce. The
other documents that Lucila Tan gave to him when she went to his O ce were
marked as Exhibit "4" and submarkings (TSN, pages 57–63, Hearing of
September 22, 2003). Lucila Tan told him the contents of the documents and how
the case against Alfonso Sy came about. When Lucila Tan asked him, he
answered her that his friend (Respondent Judge) was not like that and they had
been together for a long time and it is not possible. When he told Judge Rosete
about that, the latter got mad at him. Lucila Tan also mentioned to him that she
knew the son of the Chief Justice (TSN, pages 64–66, Hearing of September 22,
2003). Lucila Tan was insisting that he give Judge Rosete so that her case will
win but he answered that his friend was not like that (TSN, pages 67–68, Hearing
of September 22, 2003).
4. JOYCE TRINIDAD HERNANDEZ
She testi ed that she was a government employee connected with the
Judiciary at the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 58, San Juan, Metro Manila. She
knew Complainant Lucila Tan because in the year 2000 she had a case in their
court. She rst came to know Lucila Tan when the latter went to their O ce with
Ellen Sorio, the Branch Clerk of Court of Branch 57, who introduced Lucila Tan to
her. Ellen Sorio said, "may kaso ito sa inyo, pinapasabi ni Mayor kay Judge" (TSN,
pages 7–11, Hearing of September 29, 2003). She did not say anything but Lucila
Tan asked " may tumawag na ba sa Mayor's O ce ?" and she said "yes, ma'am."
After that there was a hearing and the sister of former President Estrada went to
their O ce looking for Judge Rosete. She told her that Judge Rosete was on a
hearing and the former told her to tell Judge Rosete about the case of Lucila "na
pinakikiusap ni Mayor" (TSN, page 12, Hearing of September 29, 2003). She told
Judge Rosete about the things that the sister of the former President told her and
that Judge Rosete said nothing. She denied the testimony of Complainant on
March 3, 2003 that, sometime in November 2000, she (Joyce Hernandez) called
up Lucila Tan by telephone and said that she saw money stuffed inside the
drawer of the Respondent in his O ce and that she asked the Complainant
whether the latter was the one who sent the money stuffed inside the drawer.
What she remembers is that Lucila Tan called her and asked if Josie went to their
O ce and she told Lucila Tan that Josie never went to their O ce. She also
denied that she called up Lucila Tan sometime in February 2001 and claimed that
Lucila Tan was the one who called her up and told her that she (Lucila Tan) was
going to show her something. Lucila Tan showed her a copy of the Decision and
she was surprised when the former showed her the copy. When she asked where
Lucila Tan got the copy, the latter did not answer and said that Mayor Jinggoy
wanted to talk to her (TSN, pages 13–16, Hearing of September 29, 2003). She
immediately went to the O ce of the Mayor with Lucila Tan and Mayor Jinggoy
talked to her. The Mayor asked her where Judge Rosete was and she answered
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 that he was in New Zealand on study leave. When the Mayor asked if she knew
the telephone number of the Judge, she gave him the telephone number in New
Zealand. She was present when the Mayor called up Respondent Judge and
talked to him (TSN, page 17, Hearing of September 29, 2003). "He said 'Pare ko,
ano na itong kaso na pinakikiusap ko sa iyo?' I don’t know what was your
answer(ed) [sic] to him, you were talking and then he said 'ganun ba?' then Mayor
Jinggoy said 'o sige, okay na' and then we left the O ce." She denied that she
gave two advance copies of the Decisions in Complainant's two cases inside the
latter's parked car in San Juan, Metro Manila and claimed that Complainant was
the one who showed her the copy in their O ce. She likewise denied the
testimony of the Complainant that she allegedly demanded Php150,000.00 for
each of the two cases then pending before Branch 58, which were decided by
Respondent Judge, in return for a favorable decision (TSN, pages 18–21, Hearing
of September 29, 2003). She claimed that it was the Complainant who offered to
her. She identi ed her Sworn Statement, subscribed and sworn to on February 5,
2003, which was marked as Exhibit "5," and con rmed and a rmed the
truthfulness of all the contents thereof (TSN, pages 22–25, Hearing of September
29, 2003). 9

The Court is now faced with two opposing versions of the story. Complainant claims
that respondent judge, through his staff, required her to pay the amount of P150,000.00
for him to render judgment in her favor in the two criminal cases she led against Alfonso
Pe Sy. Respondent judge, on the other hand, asserts that it was complainant who
attempted to bribe him by offering to pay for the downpayment of the car he was planning
to buy, and she even sought the intervention of then San Juan Mayor Jinggoy Estrada to
persuade him to rule for the complainant in Criminal Cases Nos. 59440 and 66120.
The issue in this administrative case thus boils down to a determination of the
credibility of the parties' evidence.
After a thorough evaluation of the testimonies of all the witnesses, as well as the
documentary evidence presented by both parties, we nd the complainant's version more
trustworthy. Not only did she testify with clarity and in full detail, but she also presented
during the investigation the unsigned copy of the draft decision of respondent judge in
Criminal Case No. 59440 given to her by a member of his staff. Said documentary
evidence supports her allegation that a member of complainant's staff met with her,
showed her copies of respondent judge's draft decisions in Criminal Cases Nos. 59440
and 66120, and demanded, in behalf of respondent judge, that she pays P150,000.00 for
the reversal of the disposition of said cases. It would be impossible for complainant to
obtain a copy of a judge's draft decision, it being highly con dential, if not through the
judge himself or from the people in his o ce. And an ordinary employee in the court
cannot promise a litigant the reversal of a case's disposition if not assured by the judge
who drafted the decision.
The respondent's evidence did not overcome the facts proved by complainant. We
note that the testimonies of two of respondent's witnesses contradict each other.
Fernando Espuerta con rmed complainant's claim that she met respondent judge and his
two companions, Espuerta himself and Rodolfo Cea (Buboy), at Sangkalan Restaurant in
Quezon City. Rodolfo Cea, on the other hand, denied that he met complainant at Sangkalan
Restaurant and swore that he never went out with respondent judge in non-o ce
functions. The Investigating Judge observed:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com
 Thus, there is an apparent inconsistency in the testimony of the
Respondent Judge's two witnesses, Rodolfo Cea and Fernando B. Espuerta,
regarding the incident at Sangkalan Restaurant in Quezon City where
Complainant claimed that she met Respondent Judge, a certain Fernan, and
Buboy, while she was with two Prosecutors. Fernando B. Espuerta testified that he
was at Sangkalan Restaurant with Respondent Judge and Buboy (Rodolfo Cea),
while the latter (Rodolfo Cea) denied that he met the Complainant at Sangkalan
Restaurant. 1 0 (citations omitted)

Hence, we are more inclined to believe complainant's version that she met with
respondent judge and his companions at Sangkalan Restaurant sometime in April
2001.
We have also observed that respondent judge has not been very candid with the
Court as regards the dates when he went to New Zealand and when he came back to the
Philippines. Respondent asserts that he was already in New Zealand at the time when
complainant claims that he met with her. However, the evidence he presented only shows
his New Zealand visa and the dates when he entered said country. 1 1 He did not show to
the investigating body the dates when he left and returned to the Philippines. Apparently,
he entered New Zealand on two dates: March 4, 2001 and May 1, 2001. We may therefore
infer that complainant was in the Philippines before May 1, 2001, which is consistent with
complainant's testimony, as well as that of Fernando Espuerta, that she met with
respondent judge and his companions, Fernando and Buboy in April 2001.
We have repeatedly admonished our judges to adhere to the highest tenets of
judicial conduct. They must be the embodiment of competence, integrity and
independence. Like Caesar's wife, a judge must not only be pure but above suspicion. This
is not without reason. The exacting standards of conduct demanded from judges are
designed to promote public con dence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary
because the people's con dence in the judicial system is founded not only on the
magnitude of legal knowledge and the diligence of the members of the bench, but also on
the highest standard of integrity and moral uprightness they are expected to possess.
When the judge himself becomes the transgressor of any law which he is sworn to apply,
he places his o ce in disrepute, encourages disrespect for the law and impairs public
con dence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary itself. It is therefore paramount
that a judge's personal behavior both in the performance of his duties and his daily life, be
free from any appearance of impropriety as to be beyond reproach. 1 2
Respondent's act of sending a member of his staff to talk with complainant and
show copies of his draft decisions, and his act of meeting with litigants outside the o ce
premises beyond o ce hours violate the standard of judicial conduct required to be
observed by members of the Bench. They constitute gross misconduct which is
punishable under Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, Respondent Judge Maxwel S. Rosete is SUSPENDED from office
without salary and other benefits for FOUR (4) MONTHS.
SO ORDERED.
Callejo, Sr., Tinga and Chico-Nazario, JJ ., concur.
Austria-Martinez, J ., is on official leave.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com

 Footnotes
1. Now Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Santiago City,
Isabela per A.M. No. 04-5-118-MTCC promulgated on July 29, 2004.
2. Complaint, Rollo, pp. 1–2.
3. Comment, Rollo, pp. 52–55.

4. Rollo, p. 95.
5. Exhibit "A."
6. Affidavit of Josefina Q. Ramos (Exhibit "1"); Affidavit of Rodolfo Cea (Exhibit "2"); and
Affidavit of Joyce Trinidad A. Hernandez (Exhibit "5").
7. Exhibit "3."
8. Exhibits "4," and "4-A" to "4-J," inclusive.
9. Report of First Vice Executive Judge Edwin A. Villasor, pp. 7–18.

10. Report of First Vice Executive Judge Edwin A. Villasor, p. 24.

11. Annexes "3" & "3-A," Respondent's Rejoinder to Complainant's Reply.
12. Avancena vs. Liwanag, 406 SCRA 300 (2003); Yap vs. Inopiquez, Jr., 403 SCRA 141
(2003).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2020 cdasiaonline.com