Saturday, September 15, 2012

EVA LUCIA Z. GEROY v. HON. DAN R. CALDERON


EVA LUCIA Z. GEROY v. HON. DAN R. CALDERON
A.M. No. RTJ-07-2092, 08 December 2008, THIRD DIVISION,

The Court has not been sparing in its exhortation of judges that they should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities. No position is more demanding as regards the moral righteousness and uprightness of any individual than a seat on the Bench; thus, their personal behavior, not only while in the performance of official duties but also outside the court, must be beyond reproach, for they are, as they so aptly are perceived to be, the visible representation of law and of justice. A judge traces a line around his ojjicial as well as personal conduct, a price he has to pay for occupying an exalted position in the judiciary, beyond which he may not freely venture. Judge Dan R Calderon failed to adhere to the exacting standards of morality and decency which every member of the judiciary is expected to observe. Judge Calderon is a married man, yet he engaged in a romantic relationship with Eva Lucia Z. Geroy. Granting arguendo that Judge Calderon's relationship with Geroy never went physical or intimate, still he cannot escape the charge of immorality, for his own adeuissions show that his relationship with her was more than professional, more than acquaintanceship, more than friendly.

FACTS:
Petitioner, Eva Lucia Z. Geroy, met respondent Judge Dan R. Calderon through her cousin at a Rotary Club dinner. Thereafter, Geroy proceeded to constantly commWlicate with him, and, soon enough, meet regularly with him. As weeks progressed, Judge Calderon would frequent her home, and she would also visit and sleep at his residence a number of times. Judge Calderon gave her food and gifts, and subsequently lent her money to enrol in a caregiver course and establish an e-load business. He also entrusted her with personal errands. According to Geroy, she and Judge Calderon consistently engaged in activities such as dining in public places, watching movies, malling, shopping for groceries and hearing mass together -- in sum, doing things and acting like a pair of lovers. However, also according to Geroy, she soon felt abused in her relationship with Judge Calderon, as he would ask her to take pictures of both of them naked after sexual contact; or make her utter vulgar words during sexual intercourse; or when she was requested by Judge Calderon to purchase abortive pills for his son, whose girlfriend was then pregnant. Subsequently, she had become the recipient of threatening calls and text messages from Judge Calderon's wife and his other relatives. Judge Calderon himself, according to Geroy, soon used abusive and hateful language in addressing her towards the end of their relationship whenever Geroy attempted to talk with him - once, at Xavier University, where Judge Calderon was a professor; and one other time at a restaurant when Geroy saw him with another woman, among other instances. On the other hand, Judge Calderon claims that from his initial meeting with Geroy at the said Rotary Club event, Geroy had already been hatching a malicious plan to extort money from him. Judge Calderon alleged that Geroy presented herself as one in dire need of financial help, and that, given his generosity, Judge Calderon had only willingly extended help through loans for Geroy's caregiver course and e-Ioad business, as well as compensation for odd jobs such as encoding cases and test questions for him, since Geroy allegedly told him that she was unemployed. Soon, according to Judge Calderon, Geroy would appear at his residence unannounced, on the pretext that she had incidentally been in the neighborhood. Judge Calderon, in turn, would invite her into his home and offer her snacks. After a number of such visits, according to Judge Calderon, Geroy started to broach topics with sexual undertones, and made insinuating remarks that it was perfectly fine for married men to have paramours. According to Judge Calderon, he soon firmly turned down her subtle advances and informed her that he would no longer extend her financial help. Thereafter, Geroy started harrassing Judge Calderon and his family, leading him to file a case against her for malicious mischief and slander by deed with the Office of the City Prosecutor.
Geroy counter-charged Judge Calderon for violation of Republic Act (R.A.) 9262 (Violence Against Women and Their Children Act). The Court redocketed the complaint as a regular administrative order and referred it to the Executive Justice of the Court of Appeals, Cagayan de Oro Station for investigation, report and recommendation. The InvestigatingJustice of the Court of Appeals proof in Judge Calderon's admissions on the witness stand that there indeed existed an illicit relationship between him and Geroy. Geroy, for her part, was also able to reveal intimate facts about Judge Calderon as proof of their romantic relationship, such as the location of skin tags on hidden parts of his body, and knowledge of the ins and outs of Judge Calderon's residence. The Investigating Justice it sufficient to suspend Judge Calderon for six months as penalty for grossly immoral conduct, instead of dismissing him outright from the service (as Geroy had initially prayed for in her complaint), taking into consideration the length of Judge Calderon's service in the judiciary and for the reason that this was the first time that he had been charged for an administrative offense.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Judge Dan R. Calderon should be dismissed from service for grossly immoral conduct because of his alleged relationship and dealings with Eva Lucia Z. Geroy

HELD:
Petition GRANTED.
The Court has not been sparing in its exhortation of judges that they should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities. No position is more demanding as regards the moral righteousness and uprightness of any individual than a seat on the Bench; thus, their personal behavior, not only while in the performance of official duties but also outside the court, must be beyond reproach, for they are, as they so aptly are perceived to be, the visible representation of law and of justice. A judge traces a line of his official as well as personal conduct, a price he has to pay for occupying an exalted position in the judiciary, beyond which he may not freely venture. The complainant, in administrative proceedings, has the burden of proving by substantial evidence the allegations in her complaint, i.e., that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion; the Court finds that the complainant in this case was able to discharge such burden. As correctly found by the Investigating Justice, Geroy was able to support her charge of immorality against Judge Calderon and has shown that the latter had not exhibited the ideals and principles expected of a magistrate. The disclosure by Geroy of very intimate facts about respondent and respondent's own seemingly innocuous admissions clearly reveal the existence of an illicit affair.
Geroy would not have known personal information about Judge Calderon if they really did not have an intimate physical relationship. Geroy related in detail her relationship with Judge Calderon and the latter could only offer general denials. Even then, he could not completely deny some communications which transpired between him and complainant which betrayed his claim of a purely platonic relationship. The bottom line is that Judge Calderon failed to adhere to the exacting standards of morality and decency which every member of the judiciary is expected to observe. Judge Calderon is a married man, yet he engaged in a romantic relationship with Geroy.
The Court agrees, however, that this is Judge Calderon's first administrative infraction since he took his office as judge on January 3, 1997. It should be considered as mitigating his liability. In view thereof, the Court finds the recommended penalty of suspension for six months without salary and other benefits, with a stem warning as recommended by the OCA, to be sufficient in this case.

No comments:

Post a Comment