EN BANC

[A.M. No. RTJ-96-1336. July 25, 1996.]

JOCELYN TALENS-DABON , complainant, vs . JUDGE HERMIN E.

ARCEO , respondent.

SYLLABUS

1. LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS; JUDGES; SHOULD NOT ONLY POSSESS

PROFICIENCY IN LAW BUT SHOULD LIKEWISE POSSESS THE HIGHEST INTEGRITY,
PROBITY AND UNQUESTIONABLE MORAL UPRIGHTNESS. — The integrity of the Judiciary
rests not only upon the fact that it is able to administer justice but also upon the
perception and con dence of the community that the people who run the system have
done justice. At times, the strict manner by which we apply the law may, in fact, do justice
but may not necessarily create con dence among the people that justice indeed, is served.
Hence, in order to create such con dence, the people who run the judiciary, particularly
judges and justices, must not only be pro cient in both the substantive and procedural
aspects of the law, but more importantly, they must possess the highest integrity, probity,
and unquestionable moral uprightness, both in their public and private lives. Only then can
the people be reassured that the wheels of justice in this country run with fairness and
equity, thus creating con dence in the judicial system. The Court has adhered and set forth
the exacting standards of morality and decency which every member of the judiciary must
observe (Sicat v. Alcantara, 161 SCRA 284 [1988]). A magistrate is judged not only by his
o cial acts but also by his private morals, to the extent that such private morals are
externalized (Junio vs. Rivera, 225 SCRA 688 [1993]). He should not only possess
pro ciency in law but should likewise possess moral integrity for the people look up to
him as a virtuous and upright man.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; GROSS MISCONDUCT AND IMMORALITY; PENALIZED WITH
DISMISSAL. — We need not repeat the narration of lewd and lustful acts committed by
respondent judge in order to conclude that he is indeed unworthy to remain in o ce. The
audacity under which the same were committed and the seeming impunity with which they
were perpetrated shock our sense of morality. All roads lead us to the conclusion that
respondent judge has failed to behave in a manner that will promote con dence in the
judiciary. His actuations, if condoned, would damage the integrity of the judiciary,
fomenting distrust in the system. Hence, his acts deserve no less than the severest form
of disciplinary sanction of dismissal from the service. Having tarnished the image of the
Judiciary, respondent, the Court holds without any hesitation, must be meted out the
severest form of disciplinary sanction — dismissal from the service. Wherefore,
respondent judge is hereby DISMISSED from the service for gross misconduct and
immorality prejudicial to the best interests of the service, with forfeiture of all retirement
bene ts and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch of the government, including
government-owned and controlled corporations.

DECISION

PER CURIAM : p

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 Once again, this Court must strike hard at an erring member of the Judiciary.
The case before us stemmed from a sworn-complaint led by Jocelyn C. Talens-
Dabon, Clerk of Court V of the Regional Trial Court of San Fernando Pampanga, charging
Judge Hermin E. Arceo, the Executive Judge thereat with gross misconduct. The complaint
was later amended to include immorality. Judge Arceo led his answer with counter-
complaint to the main complaint and his answer to the amended complaint. He likewise
submitted the affidavits of his witnesses.
After considering the answers, we issued a Resolution dated February 1, 1996
referring the case to Associate Justice Portia Aliño-Hormachuelos of the Court of Appeals
for investigation, report, and recommendations, and at the same time, placing Judge Arceo
under preventive suspension for the duration of the investigation (p. 61, Rollo).
After requests for postponement from both parties, hearings were held on March 4,
19, 20, 21, 22, and on April 1, 8, 10 and 18, 1996. Both parties presented their respective
witnesses. Except for Atty. Arnel Santos and Prosecutor Ramon S. Razon, all of Judge
Arceo's witnesses were court employees assigned at either the Office of the Clerk of Court
or Branch 43 of the Regional Trial Court of San Fernando, Pampanga.
In due time, the Investigating Justice submitted her Report and Recommendation
with the following findings:
The evidence shows that complainant Atty. Jocelyn "Joy" C. Talens-Dabon,
29, a resident of Dolores, San Fernando, Pampanga, is the Assistant Clerk of
Court of the RTC, San Fernando, Pampanga which item she assumed on August
10, 1995, after working for more than a year as Branch Clerk of Court of RTC
Kalookan City under Judge Adoracion G. Angeles. At the time of her assumption
to o ce, she was about to get married to Atty. Dabon, a lawyer who works at the
Court of Appeals. She is a Methodist, the same religion as that of respondent's
wife and family.

Respondent Judge Hermin E. Arceo, 54, a resident of Guiguinto, Bulacan is

the Presiding Judge of the RTC Branch 43 in San Fernando, Pampanga. He was
newly designated Executive Judge therein vice Judge Teodoro Bay who
transferred to Quezon City. His wife is ailing and on dialysis, and has been
residing in the U.S. with their daughter since 1989. His family is in the printing
business and his translations of some laws and books have been published
(Exhs. 15-23). He has pursued further legal studies abroad either as participant or
guest. He is President of the Pampanga-Angeles City RTC Judges Association
and was designated Presidential Assistant for Operations of the Philippine
Judges Association (PJA)

Three days after complainant rst reported at the O ce of the Clerk of

Court, Atty. Elenita Quinsay, she was summoned by respondent. He was typing
when she came in and at this rst meeting, she was surprised that without even
looking up at her, he asked her in a loud voice what she wanted. When he did look
at her she was bothered by the way he looked at her from head to foot "as if he
were undressing her". Respondent told her that she was going to be detailed to his
o ce as his assistant, a situation which she did not welcome having heard of
respondent's reputation in the o ce as "bastos" and "maniakis" prompting her to
work for her transfer to Branch 45 under Judge Adelaida Ala-Medina.

On August 21, 1995, complainant received respondent's Executive Order

No. 001-95 (Exh. H) requiring her to report to the o ce of the Executive Judge
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 effective August 28, 1995. Her work was to draft and le memos and circulars,
pay telephone and electric bills and other clerical duties assigned to her by
respondent. At one time she was designated to act as Branch Clerk of Court of
Branch 43 in the absence of OIC Bernardo Taruc. She observed respondent to be
rude and disrespectful to her and the other court personnel. He talked in a loud
voice and shouted at them; used offensive words such as "walang isip", "tanga";
told green jokes and stories; made harsh and negative comments about court
personnel in the presence of others. Whenever he had the opportunity he would
make bodily contact ("chancing") with her and certain female employees. Twice
as she was about to go out the door respondent would approach it in big strides
so that his body would be in contact with hers and he would press the lower part
of his body against her back. When complainant introduced her ance to him,
respondent asked her why she was playing with her fore nger, at the same time
gesturing with his to signify sexual intercourse. Sometime in November 1995,
respondent kissed complainant on the cheek, a fact admitted by him in his
testimony. He also admitted kissing witnesses Marilyn Leander, Ester Galicia and
other female employees.

Sometime in October 1995, the Courts of San Fernando transferred to the

Green elds Country Club due to the inundation of their regular o ces with lahar.
Ester Galicia whose house was also affected was allowed to house her
appliances in the staff room of RTC Branch 43. These included a VCR on which,
as testi ed by witness Bernardo Taruc, a VHS tape entitled "Illegal in Blue"
brought by respondent was played at respondent's bidding. The tape contained
explicit sex scenes and during its showing respondent would come out of his
chamber and tease the female employees about it. Taruc further related that at
one time respondent brought and showed to the employees a picture which when
held in some way showed figures in coital position.

Adding to complainant's apprehensions about respondent's sexual

predilection were the revelations of Marilyn Senapilo-Leander, 23, a stenographer
of Branch 43. Testifying on her own experiences with respondent, Leander stated
that respondent wrote a love poem to her (Exh. A) and that many times while
taking dictation from respondent in his chamber, he would suddenly dictate love
letters or poems addressed to her as if courting her (Exhs. B to E). He kissed her
several times, pointedly stared at her lower parts when she wore tight pants and
made body contacts ("chancing"). At one point bursting into tears — which
prompted this Investigator to suspend her testimony; she was so agitated —
Leander testi ed of the time that respondent summoned her to his chamber and
she found him clad only in briefs. When she turned around to ee, respondent
called after her saying "why are you afraid. After all, this is for you".
Leander took into her con dence the most senior employee in Branch 43,
OIC Clerk of Court Bernardo Taruc who then took it upon himself to accompany
Leander in respondent's o ce whenever he could or ask other female employees
to accompany her. Taruc asked Leander to report the matter to Deputy Court
Administrator Reynaldo Suarez but Leander expressed fear of retribution from
respondent. When Leander's wedding was set in late 1995, respondent taunted
her by saying "Ikay, ang dami ko pa namang balak sa 'yo, kinuha pa naman kita
ng bahay sa isang subdivision, tapos sinayang mo lang, tanga ka kasi!" This is
admitted by respondent who said it was only a joke. Asked why she did not le
any complaint against the respondent for sexually harassing her, Marilyn Leander
explained:
"I am afraid considering that I am just an ordinary employee. And I
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 know for a fact that Judge Hermin Arceo is a very in uential person, he is
very rich. I know he has lots of friends in Pampanga like the Governor. I
know I cannot fight by myself alone." (TSN, March 20, 1966, p. 30).
For the complainant, these personal and vicarious experiences hit bottom
with the incident that happened in the afternoon of December 6, 1995. As testi ed
by complainant, corroborated in parts by Bernardo Taruc, Yolanda Valencia and
Rosanna Garcia, complainant was summoned at about 1:30 p.m. to respondent's
temporary chamber at Green elds Country Club by respondent who himself came
to the Staff room. By this time, only the O ce of the Clerk of Court and RTC
Branch 43 had been left at Green elds; the other RTC branches had returned to
their usual o ces at the Hall of Justice. The Sangguniang Panglalawigan which
had also occupied Green elds had likewise vacated the building only the day
before.
At his temporary chamber at Green elds, respondent occupied two (2)
small adjoining rooms while the personnel of the O ce of the Clerk of Court and
RTC Branch 43 occupied a bigger room called the Maple Room (Please see Exhs.
"J", "K" and "2"). In respondent's Floor Plan marked Exhibit "2" it appears that from
respondent's chamber, one had to pass a chapel and bar lounge before reaching
the staff room. The door to the outer room of the chamber was equipped with a
knob and an automatic door closer. When locked from inside, it could not be
opened outside except with a key. Since there was no airconditioner, this door
was usually held open for ventilation by a chair or a small table. The outer room
had filing cabinet and sacks of rice lined up on two (2) sides of the wall. The inner
room also had a door but without a knob. Respondent had his desk here. The
window in this room opened to the lawn of the Country Club.
Amid this backdrop in what may have been a somnolent afternoon at
Green elds, complainant entered respondent's o ce. Already made cautious by
respondent's reputation and Mrs. Leander's experience, she took care to check the
outer door and noted the chair which prevented it from closing. Her apprehension
increased because the hallway was clear of people and only the personnel of
Branch 43 and the O ce of the Clerk of Court were left holding o ce there. She
entered the inner room, and sat on a chair in front of respondent's desk. They
talked about the impending construction of the Hall of Justice. Their conversation
was interrupted when Bernardo Taruc dropped by to tell respondent of a phone
call for him. Respondent left the room but told complainant to remain for the
signing of her Certi cate of Service which she was then bringing. After a few
minutes respondent returned and they resumed their conversation. When the talk
veered to his wife, complainant became uneasy and directed respondent's
attention to her unsigned Certi cate of Service. After respondent signed it,
complainant prepared to leave the room. At this juncture, respondent handed to
her a folded yellow paper containing his handwritten poem (Exh. M; p. 22,
Record).

Hereunder quoted is the poem and complainant's interpretation of it as

contained in her Memorandum:
"Dumating ka sa buhay ko isang araw ng Agosto
Ang baon mo ay 'yong ganda at talinong abogado

Ang tamis ng 'yong ngiti ang bumihag sa puso ko

Malakas na pampalubag sa mainit kong ulo."
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 "Indeed, the last two lines of the rst stanza are consistent with
complainant's claim regarding respondent's rude manner and erratic mood
swings.
"The second stanza of respondent's poem also jibes with his own
testimony that he would often look for complainant whenever he would not see
her, and with complainant's testimony that respondent's behavior towards her —
his propensity to utter remarks with sexual connotations, his acts of making
physical contact with her, among others —
"Ang akala ko'y gayong lamang magiging pagtingin sa iyo
Ako itong amo at ikaw ang empleyado

Bakit habang tumatagal isip ko'y nagugulo

Pag di ka nakikita'y laging nagagalit ako."

"The third stanza is most descriptive of respondent's attitude towards

complainant which complainant and her witnesses described as rude. It is also
consistent with the testimonies of witnesses that respondent would shout at
complainant and would crack green jokes towards her:
"Damdamin kong sumusupling pilit kong itinatago

Sa malalakas na mga tinig asik at mga biro

Ngunit kung nag-iisa puso ko'y nagdurugo

Hinahanap ng puso ko ang maganda mong anyo.

"The fth stanza jibes with complainant's testimony that respondent gave
her an unexpected kiss on at least two occasions:
"Bawat patak ng luha ko'y mga butil ng pag-ibig
Na siya kong kalasag sa pagnanakaw ng halik

Sa pisngi mo aking mahal, aking nilalangit

Patak ng ulan — sa buhay kong tigang ang nakakawangis."

"Finally, the fourth and last paragraphs of the poem provides the context of
the lascivious acts committed by respondent against complainant on 6 December
1995:

"Sawingpalad na pagibig nabigong pangarap

Na ikaw ay maangkin, mahagkan at mayakap
Pag-ibig mo'y ibinigay sa higit na mapalad

Ako ngayo'y naririto bigong-bigong umiiyak."

Kapalaran ay malupit, di kita makatalik

Sa ngayon o bukas pagkat di mo ibig

Aangkinin kita kahit sa panaginip
Gano'n kita kamahal Joy, aking pag- ibig."
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 (Complainant's Memorandum, pp. 32-33)

Complainant found the poem repulsive (obscene) particularly the line

saying "Kapalaran ay malupit, di kita makatalik sa ngayon at bukas pagkat di mo
ibig." In her testimony, complainant said she considered the poem malicious
because they were both married persons, and he was a judge and she was his
subordinate. Although outraged, complainant respectfully asked permission to
leave while putting the poem in the pocket of her blazer. She then proceeded
towards the outer room where she was surprised to nd the door closed and the
chair holding it open now barricaded it. The knob's button was now in a vertical
position signifying that door was locked.

Complainant was removing the chair when respondent walked to her in big
strides asking her for a kiss. Seconds later he was embracing her and trying to
kiss her. Complainant evaded and struggled and pushed respondent away. Then
panicking, she ran in the direction of the ling cabinets. Respondent caught up
with her, embraced her again, pinned her against the ling cabinets and pressed
the lower part of his body against hers. Complainant screamed for help while
resisting and pushing respondent. Then she ran for the open windows of the inner
room. But before she could reach it respondent again caught her. In the ensuing
struggle, complainant slipped and fell on the oor, her elbows supporting the
upper part of her body while her legs were outstretched between respondent's
feet. Respondent then bent his knees in a somewhat sitting (squatting) position,
placed his palms on either side of her head and kissed her on the mouth with his
mouth open and his tongue sticking out. As complainant continued to struggle,
respondent suddenly stopped and sat on the chair nearest the door of the inner
room with his face red and breathing heavily. Complainant angrily shouted
"maniac, demonyo, bastos, napakawalanghiya ninyo". Respondent kept muttering
"I love you" and was very apologetic offering for his driver to take her home.
Complainant headed for the Maple Room where, when she entered, she was
observed by Bernardo Taruc and Yolanda Valencia to be ushed in the face and
with her hair disheveled. Yolanda particularly found surprising complainant's
disheveled hair because complainant considered her (long straight) hair one of
her assets and was always arranging it. Rosanna Garcia in her testimony
observed that complainant was really angry as shown by the way she grabbed
her bag "talagang galit."
It is to be noted that Mrs. Rosanna Garcia, 36, was a most reluctant
witness. When rst subpoenaed, she did not appear and sent a medical certi cate
(p. 120, Record) that she was suffering from hypertension. She testi ed that she
was asked by respondent to sign an a davit (Exh. F, pp. 56-57, Record) prepared
by him and that eventually, she executed a Sinumpaang Salaysay in her own
handwriting (Exh. G) wherein she stated that some of the statements in her earlier
a davit were false and that she was only forced to sign because respondent
shouted at her when she refused; that she was afraid of respondent who was her
boss. She corroborated complainant's declaration that respondent went to the
door of the Maple Room in order to call her (complainant), adding that his call
could not be made from his o ce because he could not be heard as his o ce
was far from the Maple Room. This is in direct contrast to respondent's testimony
that he did not summon complainant but she came to him to get the poem that
she asked him to make for her.
When complainant angrily left the Maple Room, Yolanda Valencia followed
and walked with her outside. On the road, complainant told Valencia
"napakawalanghiya ni Judge, bastos, demonyo" and vowed that she would tell
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 her family about what respondent did to her so that her father would maul him.
As testi ed by Yolanda Valencia, complainant was so angry "nagdadabog talaga
siya" (TSN, March 19, 1996, p. 194). But as they were already on the road,
complainant did not tell Valencia what happened.

The next day complainant related her experience to Bernardo Taruc with
whom she rode to the office. As testified by Taruc:
"A She was telling me about the incident which happened that
afternoon of December 6, 1995.

Q Can you tell us what she told you about the December 6, 1995
incident?

A She told me that she was kissed by the Judge inside his office.
Q What else did she tell you, if any?

A She said that she was pushed on the oor and she was very
disorganized in relating the incident it was as if she was trying to
say all things at the same time. But what I got from her was that she
was kissed by the Judge in the o ce on December 6 on the lips and
she was fuming mad.
Q What was your reaction when you heard that from Atty. Talens-
Dabon?

A I was . . . I was shocked . . . I don't know the proper term. I was

shocked.
Q What did you say or do upon learning the incident?

A When she later on was paci ed, she asked me, 'what am I going to
do? Am I going to press charges?'

Q What did you say?

A I told her it is up to her and before doing it she has to weigh all
things, the consequences if she would file a case.

Q Was that the end of the conversation?

A No, she kept on retelling it all over again till we reach the office."
(TSN, March 20, 1966, pp. 127-128).

Complainant also related what happened to witness Atty. Elenita Quinsay

but, as testi ed by Atty. Quinsay, complainant did not want anybody (else) to
know about the kissing incident at that point. Atty. Quinsay advised complainant
to talk with respondent and ask for a transfer.

On December 12, 1995 complainant went to the Hall of Justice where

respondent was, and as he was about to board his car, approached him and
verbally broached her request for transfer. He acceded. Thus in the morning of
December 18, 1995, complainant brought her written request for transfer dated
December 12, 1995 (Exh. N) for respondent's signature, reminding him of his
earlier verbal approval. He refused saying he needed her for two (2) administrative
cases that he was investigating. When she insisted, he shouted at her saying it
was his decision and had to be obeyed. However, he eventually signed the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 memorandum (Exh. O) transferring her later that morning.

Two days later, on December 20, 1995, complainant, after consulting her
family, reported the matter to the police and led with the Municipal Trial Court of
San Fernando, Pampanga criminal cases for acts of lasciviousness (Exh. 3),
Violation of Anti-Sexual Harassment Law (Exh. 5) and this administrative case
the following day.
For his part, respondent mostly denied complainant's allegations. He
presented his version of some speci c incidents or conduct such as that he was
merely imitating complainant's gesture with her fore nger as she nervously
introduced her boyfriend to him. He admitted that he kissed her ("November
incident was not the rst but it was the last") and other female employees;
admitted the pre-wedding incident where he told Mrs. Leander "tanga ka kasi" but
said it was only a joke; admitted that his voice is louder than others but he does
not shout; admitted that he tells green but "never vulgar" jokes. Denying Marilyn
Leander's allegations and disclaiming any knowledge of Exhs. A to E, he
described Leander as a "very young funny person, always laughing." In his
testimony he never showed why Marilyn Leander, Rosanna Garcia or Yolanda
Valencia would testify against him to corroborate complainant's testimony,
reserving his venom for Bernardo Taruc. He said Taruc's research work were "not
usable". He insinuated that Taruc perjured himself because he was jealous about
Marilyn Leander with whom he (Taruc) has a relationship.

He declared that nothing happened on December 6, that it was

complainant who entered his room to get the poem she herself asked him to
make. He called the December 6 incident a "mere fabrication" of complainant in
vengeful retaliation of four (4) incidents that he either scolded or humiliated her
namely: in September 1995 when he reminded, but did not scold, her to report to
Branch 43; in November 1995 when he reproached her for not re ecting in her
Certi cate of Service that she had gone to Hongkong; in the rst week of
December 1995 when she committed an error in the notice for a judges' meeting;
and nally on December 18, 1995, when he scolded her for insisting to allow her
to return to the O ce of the Clerk of Court. He asserted that he never noticed any
change of complainant's behavior towards him and that he was never attracted to
her.

He dismissed the poem marked Exhibit "M" as nothing more than an

intellectual creation "too apocryphal to be true", that it was exaggerated and
meant only to praise and entertain complainant. He declared that he had in fact
written other poems (Exhs. 25 to 30) including the one published through a
certain Fred Roxas (Exh. 25). Belying the kissing incident, he contended that there
had been a gardener working at 3:00 to 5:00 that afternoon on the lawn just
outside the window of his o ce, implying that if indeed complainant had
screamed, it would have been heard by the gardener. But it is to be noted that this
alleged gardener was never presented.

(pp. 11-31, Report and Recommendation)

Based on the foregoing ndings, the Investigating Justice made the following
conclusions: a) that there is su cient evidence to create a moral certainty that respondent
committed the acts complained of, especially the violent kissing incident which transpired
last December 6, 1995; b) that complainant and her witnesses are credible witnesses who
have no ulterior motive or bias to falsely testify against respondent; c) that respondent's
denials can not prevail over the weight and probative value of the a rmative assertions of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 complainant and her witnesses; d) that respondent's poem has damned him, being
documented proof of his sexual intentions towards the complainant; e) that by ling her
charges imputing to respondent a crime against chastity and with her background as a
lawyer and a court employee, complainant was well-aware that her honor would itself be
on trial; f) that it is unbelievable that complainant, a demure newly-married lady and a
religious person, would fabricate a story with such severe implications on respondent's
professional and personal life just to get even with respondent for an alleged simple
scolding incident; and g) that by doing the acts complained of, respondent has tempted
the morals of not only complainant but also the other court employees over whom he
exercised power and in uence as Executive Judge. The Investigating Justice thereupon,
recommended that respondent be dismissed from the service with prejudice to re-
appointment in any other government position and with forfeiture of all bene ts and
privileges appertaining him, if any.
The Court has reviewed the record of this case and has thereby satis ed itself that
the ndings and recommendations of the Investigating Justice are in truth adequately
supported by the evidence and are in accord with applicable legal principles. The Court
agrees and adopts such findings and recommendations.
The integrity of the Judiciary rests not only upon the fact that it is able to administer
justice but also upon the perception and con dence of the community that the people who
run the system have done justice. At times, the strict manner by which we apply the law
may, in fact, do justice but may not necessarily create con dence among the people that
justice, indeed, is served. Hence, in order to create such con dence, the people who run the
judiciary, particularly judges and justices, must not only be pro cient in both the
substantive and procedural aspects of the law, but more importantly, they must possess
the highest integrity, probity, and unquestionable moral uprightness, both in their public
and private lives. Only then can the people be reassured that the wheels of justice in this
country run with fairness and equity, thus creating confidence in the judicial system.
With the avowed objective of promoting con dence in the Judiciary, we have the
following provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct:
Canon I

Rule 1.01: A Judge should be the embodiment of competence, integrity

and independence.
Canon II

Rule 2.00: A Judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of

impropriety in all activities.

Rule 2.01: A judge should so behave at all times as to promote public

confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

The Court has adhered and set forth the exacting standards of morality and decency
which every member of the judiciary must observe (Sicat vs. Alcantara, 161 SCRA 284
[1988]). A magistrate is judged not only by his o cial acts but also by his private morals,
to the extent that such private morals are externalized (Junio vs. Rivera, 225 SCRA 688
[1993]). He should not only possess pro ciency in law but should likewise possess moral
integrity for the people look up to him as a virtuous and upright man.
In Dy Teban Hardware and Auto Supply Co. vs. Tapucar (102 SCRA 493 [1981]), the
Court laid down the rationale why every judge must posses moral integrity, thusly;
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 The personal and o cial actuations of every member of the judiciary must
be beyond reproach and above suspicion. The faith and con dence of the people
in the administration of justice can not be maintained if a judge who dispenses it
is not equipped with the cardinal judicial virtue of moral integrity and if he
obtusely continues to commit affront to public decency. In fact, moral integrity is
more than a virtue; it is a necessity in the judiciary.

(at p. 504.)

In Castillo vs. Calanog (199 SCRA 75 [1991], it was emphasized that:

The Code of Judicial Ethics mandates that the conduct of a judge must be
free of a whiff of impropriety not only with respect to his performance of his
judicial duties, but also to his behavior outside his sala and as a private
individual. There is no dichotomy of morality; a public o cial is also judged by
his private morals. The Code dictates that a judge, in order to promote public
con dence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, must behave with
propriety at all times. As we have very recently explained, a judge's official life can
not simply be detached or separated from his personal existence. Thus:

Being the subject of constant public scrutiny, a judge should freely

and willingly accept restrictions on conduct that might be viewed as
burdensome by the ordinary citizen.
A judge should personify integrity and exemplify honest public
service. The personal behavior of a judge, both in the performance of his
official duties and in private life should be above suspicion.

(at p. 93.)

Respondent has failed to measure up to these exacting standards. He has behaved

in a manner unbecoming of a judge and as model of moral uprightness. He has betrayed
the people's high expectations and diminished the esteem in which they hold the judiciary
in general.
We need not repeat the narration of lewd and lustful acts committed by respondent
judge in order to conclude that he is indeed unworthy to remain in o ce. The audacity
under which the same were committed and the seeming impunity with which they were
perpetrated shock our sense of morality. All roads lead us to the conclusion that
respondent judge has failed to behave in a manner that will promote con dence in the
judiciary. His actuations, if condoned, would damage the integrity of the judiciary,
fomenting distrust in the system. Hence, his acts deserve no less than the severest form
of disciplinary sanction of dismissal from the service.
The actuations of respondent are aggravated by the fact that complainant is one of
his subordinates over whom he exercises control and supervision, he being the executive
judge. He took advantage of his position and power in order to carry out his lustful and
lascivious desires. Instead of he being in loco parentis over his subordinate employees,
respondent was the one who preyed on them, taking advantage of his superior position.
Noteworthy then is the following observation of the Investigating Justice:
But the very act of forcing himself upon a married woman, being himself a
married man, clearly diverts from the standard of morality expected of a man of
less than his standing in society. This is exacerbated by the fact that by doing the
acts complained of, he has tempted the morals of not only the complainant but
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 also the young Mrs. Marilyn Leander and the other employees in the court over
whom he exercised power and influence as Executive Judge.
(pp. 36-37.)

Respondent may indeed be a legally competent person as evidenced by his

published law books (translations from English to Tagalog) and his legal studies abroad,
but he has demonstrated himself to be wanting of moral integrity. He has violated the
Code of Judicial Conduct which requires every judge to be the embodiment of
competence, integrity, and independence and to avoid impropriety and the appearance of
impropriety in all activities as to promote public con dence in the integrity and impartiality
of the judiciary.
Having tarnished the image of the Judiciary, respondent, the Court holds without any
hesitation, must be meted out the severest form of disciplinary sanction — dismissal from
the service.
As a reminder to all judges, it is tting to reiterate one of the mandates of the Court
in its Circular No. 13 dated July 1, 1987, to wit:
Finally, all trial judges should endeavor to conduct themselves strictly in
accordance with the mandate of existing laws and the Code of Judicial Ethics
that they be exemplars in the communities and the living personi cation of
justice and the Rule of Law.

WHEREFORE, Judge Hermin E. Arceo is hereby DISMISSED from the service for
gross misconduct and immorality prejudicial to the best interests of the service, with
forfeiture of all retirement bene ts and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch of
the government, including government-owned and controlled corporations.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C . J ., Padilla, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Melo, Vitug, Kapunan,
Mendoza, Francisco, Hermosisima, Jr., Panganiban, and Torres, Jr., JJ ., concur.
Bellosillo, J ., on leave.
Puno, J ., took no part.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com