The Supreme Court (SC) dismissed the Presiding Judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Biliran-Cabucgayan, Biliran, for gross misconduct in manipulating medical supply procurement for Manila City.
The SC en banc affirmed the findings of the Judicial Integrity Board (JIB), emphasizing that the judge’s actions demonstrated a blatant disregard for judicial ethics.
In 2016, the judge proposed a P50 million pharmaceutical supply project to the petitioner (a pharmaceutical supplier), assuring him of securing the deal for four hospitals in the capital city.
He claimed his wife, the Executive Secretary of former Manila Mayor Joseph E. Estrada, could fast-track the procurement without public bidding.
The high court, in a ruling promulgated in July, dismissed the judge from service, stripping all due benefits away except accrued leave benefits. The ruling was publicized on Dec. 19
It also ordered the judge to show cause in writing within ten days of notice of why he should not be disbarred.
The case stemmed from a series of bank deposits and personal deliveries of money by the petitioner to the judge for over three years.
When payments approached P20 million without any progress on the promised project, he recognized the fraud and filed an administrative complaint against the judge for gross misconduct.
During the investigation of the JIB, the judge claimed he was merely acting as a messenger for his wife to retrieve documents from the petitioner as a gesture of gratitude for her help in rebuilding his home after Super Typhoon Haiyan, locally called Yolanda.
He also said he and his wife had been separated for over 30 years.
Meanwhile, the wife argued that her busy schedule as an officer at the Manila City Mayor’s Office led her to delegate document retrieval to the judge. She further asserted that upon discovering the petitioner’s bidding documents, she offered to return the payments.
The JIB found the judge guilty of gross misconduct, citing violations of the New Code of Judicial Conduct.
It emphasized the importance of judicial integrity and proprietary, under Canon 2 and Canon 4 of the Code, requiring judges to uphold public confidence in the judiciary and avoid any semblance of impropriety.
The top court upheld these findings, noting that despite knowing the illegality of his wife’s actions, the judge actively participated by serving as her intermediate, receiving bidding documents and money from the petitioner.
“Indeed, his actions tainted the image of the judiciary. For knowingly participating in the act of manipulating the process of public bidding in violation of Sections 356 and 366 of Republic Act No. 7160 in relation to Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 the Court finds [him] guilty of gross misconduct under the New Code of Judicial Conduct,” the 21-page ruling read. — Chloe Mari A. Hufana
