Alfonso v Juanson Case Digest (Legal Ethics)

Alfonso v Juanson 

AM No. RTJ-92-904 

December 7, 1993  

FACTS:  

The case involves a complaint filed by a doctor of medicine, Dr. Norbert L. Alfonso, charging Judge Juanson with immorality and violation of the Code of Judicial ethics, alleging that Juanson and his wife Sol were having an affair. The complainant has in his possession love letters written by Sol to prove his claim, provided by Judge Juanson's wife. Sol, however, denied this claim several times.  Other evidence for the prosecution includes files of a private investigator hired by Dr. Alfonso's father showing that Sol had met with Judge Juanson on 17 July 1992 in a condominium unit in Mandaluyong and that they stayed there for approximately three hours. Dr. Alfonso confronted Sol about the evidence that was gathered by his father. At first she denied the affair but later in the evening she admitted having an illicit affair with Judge Juanson. Sol also admitted to the Complainant that when she went to Hongkong on December 26, 1989 up to December 29, 1989 she was with Respondent Judge, and records of the Commission on Immigration for said dates show that both Sol Alfonso and Respondent Judge Modesto Juanson departed for Hongkong via Cathay Pacific plane on December 26, 1989 and returned to Manila on December 29, 1989 The Alfonso spouses decided to live in separate house.  

In defense, Judge Juanson claims that he first knew Sol in 1987 when she engaged his professional services in connection with the criminal cases filed by her office. In June 1992 (while the Alfonso spouses were in the US) he received an overseas call from Sol asking him for advice concerning her problem with her employer. They met up after the return of Sol in the Philippines to discuss her problem. He added that it was impossible for him to have sexual intercourse with Sol because he has been suffering from two debilitating diseases – diabetes mellitus and prostatitis (which have seriously affected his sexual potency).  

ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Juanson's alleged sexual impropriety is a ground for him to be dismissed from the Judiciary  

HELD: No.  

RATIO DECIDENDI:  

There is no doubt in our minds that a very special relationship existed between the respondent and the complainant's wife as evidenced by cards or notes (love letters). It is clear that their affair began before Sol and Dr. Alfonso were married on 10 December 1988 and might have blossomed from the attorney-client relationship between respondent and Sol.  However, the evidence presented was insufficient to prove that he and Sol continued their extramarital affair after Judge Juanson was appointed to the judiciary. Sol's admission to her husband that she had carnal knowledge with the judge made no reference to specific dates and the side of Dr. Alfonso exerted no further effort to obtain clarifications as to the dates. It cannot be safely presumed that Juanson committed any sexual indiscretion after he became a judge. He is not charged for immorality committed before his appointment.  Accordingly, proof of prior immoral conduct cannot be a basis for his administrative discipline in this case. Judge Juanson may have undergone moral reformation after his appointment, or his appointment could have completely transformed him upon the solemn realization that a public office is a public trust and public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives. However, considering their prior special relationship, the respondent and Sol's meetings could reasonably incite suspicion of either its continuance or revival and the concomitant intimacies expressive of such relationship. Such indiscretions indubitably cast upon his conduct an appearance of impropriety. He thus violated:  

· Canon 3 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics which mandates that “a judge's official conduct should be free from the appearance of impropriety, and his personal behavior, not only upon the bench and in the performance of judicial duties, but also in his everyday life, should be beyond reproach," and · Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which provides that  "a judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities."  

It is to be noted that 17 July 1992 fell on a Friday. On that date, the respondent left his office at the City Hall of Manila at about 11:00 o'clock in the morning and arrived at Unit 412-A Citihomes thirty minutes later. It is, therefore, clear that on 17 July 1992 the respondent had left his office during office hours and, considering the distance between Mandaluyong and his office at the City Hall of Manila and the usual traffic condition, it was impossible for him to have reached his office — if at all he did proceed to it — in time for the commencement of the official session hours in the afternoon, i.e., 2:00 p.m. Thus, for purely personal sessions, he violated the rule regarding the official sentence. Such violation amounted to neglect of duty.  

It has been said that a magistrate of the law must comport himself at all times in such manner that his conduct, official or otherwise, can bear the most searching scrutiny of the public that looks up to him as the epitome of integrity and justice. The ethical principles and sense of propriety of a judge are essential to the preservation of the faith of the people in the judiciary. It is settled that immorality has not been confined to sexual matters, but includes conduct inconsistent with rectitude or indicative of corruption, indecency, depravity, and dissoluteness; or is willful, flagrant, or shameless conduct showing moral indifference to opinions of respectable members of the community, and as an inconsiderate attitude toward good order and public welfare.  

WHEREFORE, for violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct, the Canons of Judicial Ethics, and the rule on official time, respondent JUDGE MODESTO C. JUANSON is hereby sentenced to pay a FINE of TWO THOUSAND PESOS (P2,000.00) and, further, sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.