You are on page 1of 1

Junio vs. Rivera, Jr.

FACTS:
Fourteen (14) year-old Cristina Junio filed a complaint acts of lasciviousness against respondent Judge
Pedro Rivera Jr. of the Municipal Trial Court of Alaminos, Pangasinan for kissing her while he was drunk during his
birthday party, which act constitutes gross misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the
Judiciary.Cristinas father, Patricio Junio, filed an administrative charge against the respondent with respect to the
same acts complained of criminally. Judge Pedro C. Rivera, Jr. is found guilty of gross misconduct and conduct and
isDISMISSED from the service with prejudice to re-employment in any part of the government service including
government-owned or controlled corporations, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and privileges.
However, After more than 11 years respondent Judge pleaded on the SC based on humanitarian
considerations and in the spirit of forgiveness, he be granted monetary benefits and allow him to work in any
government agency or government-owned or controlled corporations as a consultant. He further stated that he was
acquitted in the criminal case for acts of lasciviousness filed against him; that he served the government for more
than thirty-five (35) years, four (4) years of which was in the Judiciary; and that this is his first administrative offense.
ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Rivera is guilty of gross misconduct?
RULING:
Yes. Judge Rivera is guilty of gross misconduct. A magistrate of the law must comport himself in a manner
that his conduct must be free of a whiff of impropriety, not only with respect to the performance of his official duties,
but also to his behavior outside his sala and as a private individual.. Hence, their faithful adherence to the Code of
Judicial Conduct is strictly demanded. A lackadaisical attitude towards these judicial standards is impermissible.
Gaudencio vs. Pacis
FACTS:
In a letter-complaint to the Chief Justice, Anastacio E. Gaudencio states that he has a case dragging on for
years before the sala of Judge Edward D. Pacis of the Municipal Trial Court of Marilao, Bulacan due to constant
resetting of hearings, inefficiency, absenteeism and inexpertise in the field of law of the latter.
In his comment Judge Pacis characterizes the complaint to be a mere demolition job against him.
Respondent avers that the alleged complainant is a fictitious person, denies having been absent, disclaims re-setting
an arraignment and pre-trial and trial of cases are reset are when witnesses are absent, or when the public
prosecutor is absent
He adds that in respondents six years as a judge, this is not respondents first brush with an administrative
complaint. There is still a pending investigation, on a charge of Gross Ignorance of Procedure.
By order of this Court an audit team conduct a judicial audit and physical inventory of cases pending before
respondents sala. In his report the Court Administrator enumerates irregularities found in respondents sala.
ISSUE: whether or not Judge Pacis should be held administratively liable.
RULING:
Considering the explanations of Judge Pacis and Ms. Esguerra, the OCA recommended that the
explanations be deemed satisfactory. Judge Edward D. Pacis was, however, advised to: (a) observe strict adherence
to the guidelines set forth under paragraphs I and IV of Administrative Circular 3-99, dated January 15, 1999, and
refrain from frequent granting of motions for postponement; and (b) regularly conduct hearings to avoid giving the
public the impression that the Hon. Judge is remiss in the performance of his judicial functions.

You might also like