INSTANCE SHOWING SIMPLE MISCONDUCT OF A JUDGE (Judicial Ethics)

Aida R. Campos, Alistair R. Campos, and Charmaine R. Campos v. Judge Eliseo M.

Campos
A.M. No. MTJ-10-1761, February 8, 2012
Carpio, J.
FACTS:
This is a complaint for serious misconduct, immorality and dishonesty filed by complainants
against respondent, former Presiding Judge of the MTC of Bayugan, Agusan del Sur.
Complainant Aida and respondent were married in 1981 and had two children, complainants
Alistair and Charmaine. In 2008, respondent filed a petition for Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage, alleging that he and Aida were both psychologically incapacitated to comply with the
essential marital obligations. For his part, respondent is a homosexual who could not be
intimate with his wife unless he imagined he was with another man, while his wife had affairs
with other men as a result of his homosexuality. To her defense, Aida denied the allegations and
filed for legal separation. According to her, respondent wanted their marriage annulled so that
he could marry another woman with whom he was having a relationship.
In the meantime, a separate case was pending against the respondent, to which a certain
parcel of registered land might be taken from the their property in the event of loss. Facts show
that the title to such land was kept by respondent in his drawer. When respondent could not
find the title in his usual place for safekeeping, he sought the advice of the Register of Deeds
who told him to execute the affidavit of loss, to which he did. Respondent then registered the
title but in the name of Alistair, a minor at that time.
ISSUE:
Is respondent guilty of immorality, dishonesty, and serious misconduct?
HELD:
NO, respondent is not guilty of immorality, dishonesty and serious misconduct but only simple
misconduct. First, the complainants failed to present any proof of respondents alleged
relationship with another woman, so as to justify a charge for immorality. There was no
evidence presented that respondent engaged in scandalous conduct that would warrant the
imposition of disciplinary action against him. However, the Court reminded respondent of the
judge's duty to conduct himself in a way that is consistent with the dignity of the judicial office.
As such, he must comport himself at all times in such a 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.