2 | Tan v Rosete

A.M. No. MTJ-04-1563 | Sept. 8, 2004 | Puno, J.

Quick Summary/Keyword: Judge Rosete’s act of sending a member of his staff to talk to Ms.
Tan, a complainant in one of the criminal cases pending before his sala, and and show copies
of his draft decisions, and his act of meeting with litigants outside the office premises beyond
office hours violate the standard of judicial conduct required to be observed by members of
the Bench.

Note: Jinggoy Estrada’s cameo in this case.

Doctrine: Like Caesar’s wife, a judge must not only be pure but above suspicion. This is
not without reason. The exacting standards of conduct demanded from judges are designed
to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary because the
people’s confidence in the judicial system is founded not only on the magnitude of legal
knowledge and the diligence of the members of the bench, but also on the highest standard of
integrity and moral uprightness they are expected to possess. When the judge himself
becomes the transgressor of any law which he is sworn to apply, he places his office in
disrepute, encourages disrespect for the law and impairs public confidence in the integrity and
impartiality of the judiciary itself.

Facts

● In a complaint filed by Lucila Tan (Ms. Tan) against Judge Maxwel S. Rosete (Judge
Rosete) the former alleged that:
○ Ms. Tan was the private complainant in a criminal case against one Alfonso Pe
Sy (Mr. Sy) pending before the court presided over by Judge Rosete;
○ Before the case was decided upon by the trial court, Ms. Tan alleged that Judge
Rosete sent a member of his staff to talk to her; they met at a restaurant where
she was informed by said staff member that Judge Rosete was asking for
P150,000 in exchange for the non-dismissal of the cases.
○ She was allegedly shown copies of Judge Rosete’s yet unsigned decisions
dismissing the complaints against Mr. Sy. She was told that the decisions would
be reversed as soon as she remits the amount demanded; she was also allowed
to keep the copy of the draft decision.
○ Ms. Tan, however, believing that she had a very strong case, did not accede to
the demand. Eventually, Judge Rosete dismissed the criminal cases.
● In his Comment, Judge Rosete denied the allegations of the complainant. Instead, he
said that it was actually Ms. Tan who tried to bribe him in exchange for a favorable
decision. According to Judge Rosete, Ms. Tan even tried to delay and derail the
promulgation of the decision in the cases, even going so far as to involve then Mayor of
San Juan, Jinggoy Estrada who allegedly tried to persuade Judge Rosete to help Ms.
Tan.
● The Supreme Court referred the complaint to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial
Court of Pasig City for investigation, report and recommendation.
Issue/s and Resolution

1. W/N Judge Rosete violated the Code of Judicial Conduct

Yes, in ruling so, the Court gave more credence to Ms. Tan’s testimony. The Court
noted that “she testif[ied] with clarity and in full detail and also presented during the
investigation the unsigned copy of the draft decision of respondent judge. The Court held
that such documentary evidence “supports her allegation that a member of complainant’s
staff met with her, showed her copies of respondent judge’s draft decisions x x x and
demanded, in behalf of respondent judge, that she pays ₱150,000.00 for the reversal of the
disposition of said cases.” It would be impossible for complainant to obtain a copy of a
judge’s draft decision, it being highly confidential, if not through the judge himself or
from the people in his office. And an ordinary employee in the court cannot promise a
litigant the reversal of a case’s disposition if not assured by the judge who drafted the
decision.

In addition to not overcoming the facts proved by Ms. Tan, the Court also noted that two of
Judge Rosete’s witnesses contradicted each other.1 Also, according to the Court’s review of
the facts, Judge Rosete had not been candid with the Court as regards the dates when he
went to New Zealand and when he came back to the Philippines.

Thus, the Court found respondent judge’s acts as constituting gross misconduct and
violating the standards of judicial conduct required of members of the Bench.

Separate Opinion/s None

Ruling

IN VIEW WHEREOF, Respondent Judge Maxwel S. Rosete is SUSPENDED from office without
salary and other benefits for FOUR (4) MONTHS.

Additional Note/s N/A

1
Fernando Espuerta confirmed Ms. Tan’s claim that she met Judge Rosete, himself (Mr. Espuerta) and Roberto Cea
at a restaurant. But, Cea in his testimony, denied having met Ms. Tan at a restaurant and also testified that he never
went out with Judge Rosete in non-office functions.