[A.M. No.RTJ-02-1708.
July 23, 2002]CYNTHIA RESNGIT- Justice Brawner thus recommended that respondent
MARQUEZ, SHIELAH J. RAMOS,ROSALINDA L. ROQUILLAS
and VICKY F.RAMOS,
complainants, vs.
JUDGE VICTOR T. LLAMAS, JR.,Regional Trial Court,
Branch 56, San Carlos City,Pangasinan,
respondent .
Charges:
immorality and gross misconduct.
FACTS:
The complainants are court employees. They allegedthat
the respondent judge, although married, maintains
anillicit relationship with a married woman, Lourdes
Munoz-Garcia (who fondly calls him “Daddy”or Masiken[
Pangasinense for “old man”] and the relationship
istrumpeted in open view) and both are living together
ashusband and wife under one roof. The Judge also used
theoffice of his personnel as dancing halls and drinking
winerooms during office hours. And the Judge was even
drunkalmost everyday (his court interpreter alleged that
heholds a glass of wine while roaming the Justice Hall
duringoffice hours and would force his staff to drink with
himand some lawyers and litigants. He loves Carlsber
winesbecause they make him feel young). They were
alsosubjected to intimidated and harassed by the
respondentJudge.Associate Justice Romeo A. Brawner of
the Court ofAppeals findings and recommendation:
“Respondent Judge has failed to live up to these exacting
magnitude of how a judge should behave. His disregard
forcommon decency and morality has made him unfit to
discharge his present position “and thus his dismissal is
in order. His retirement benefits should likewise be
forfeitedbut his wife who has never appeared on the
scene shouldnow be his saving grace against such
forfeiture.
“Indeed it is the wife of Judge Llamas who is the
aggrieved party in the infidelity of her husband but she
was not theone who initiated this complaint nor did she
participate inits prosecution. This factor should be
considered in respondent Judge’s favor and therefore he
should bespared the forfeiture of his earned benefits.”
] honesty, integrity anduprightness. Certainly, keeping a
Judgebe dismissed from service but without forfeiture of
hisearned benefits.ISSUE: Whether or not the
respondent judge is guilty ofimmorality.RULING: YES.In
administrative proceedings, only substantialevidence,
i.e., that amount of relevant evidence that areasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support aconclusion,
is required. We find no room to accommodate doubts on
Justice Brawner’s findings of facts, which we find to be a
result of a meticulous and dispassionateanalysis of the
testimonies of the complainants and therespondent as
well as their respective witnesses. Thus, we adopt Justice
Brawner’s recommendation of dismissal.
The Code of Judicial Conduct mandates that a
judgeshould be the embodiment of competence,
integrity, andindependence. He should so behave at all
times as topromote public confidence in the integrity and
impartialityof the judiciary, and avoid impropriety and
the appearanceof impropriety in all activities.
His personal behavior, notonly while in the performance
of official duties but alsooutside the court, must be
beyond reproach, for he is, as heso aptly is perceived to
be, the visible personification oflaw and of justice.
[
Regrettably, respondent Judge failed to live up tothese
standards. He brazenly flouted judicial ethics and
betrayed judicial standards by using ‘his court to indulge
his drinking, singing and dancing habits to the detriment
ofthe other courts within the building who were
disturbedby all the noise coming fr om his courtroom”;
and, especially, by maintaining an illicit relationship
withLourdes Muñoz Garcia, a married woman. A judge
suffersfrom moral obtuseness or has a weird notion of
morality inpublic office when he labors under
the delusion that he canbe a judge and at the same time
have a mistress in defianceof the mores and sense of
morality of the community.A judge traces a line around
his official as well aspersonal conduct, a price one has to
pay for occupying anexalted position in the judiciary,
beyond which he may notfreely venture. No position is
more demanding as regardsmoral righteousness and
uprightness of any individualthan a seat on the Bench.
Thus, a judge ought to live up tothe strictest standard of
mistress is not an act onewould expect of a judge who is
expected to posses thehighest standard of morality and
decency.Respondent Judge shamelessly mocked the
dignity ofhis office and tainted the image of the entire
judiciary towhich he owes fealty and the obligation to
keep it at all time unsullied and worthy of the people’s
trust.

Respondent Judge has shown himself unworthy of

thejudicial robe and the place of honor reserved for
theguardian of justice in a civilized community. On
thisoccasion, therefore, the Court metes upon
respondentJudge the severest of administrative
penalties. He is herebystripped of his judicial
robe.However, we are unable to agree with the
reservationof Justice Brawner on the forfeiture of earned
benefits duerespondent Judge based on the fact that
respondent Judge’s wife was not the one who initiated
this complaint nor did she participate in its prosecution.
The non-participation or non-appearance of the wife in
theadministrative proceedings for immorality is not a
factorin the imposition of penalty. Neither should it be
beneficialto respondent Judge.DISPOSITION: GUILTY OF
THE CHARGE OFIMMORALITY. HEREBY DISMISSED WITH
FORFEITURE OF50% OF HIS RETIREMENT BENEFITS