The Supreme Court dismissed Judge Rexel M. Pacuribot for gross misconduct and immorality after finding him guilty of sexually harassing and raping two female subordinates. This landmark ruling emphasizes that judges must maintain the highest standards of moral integrity, both in their public and private lives, to ensure public confidence in the judiciary. The decision underscores that any conduct that undermines the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary will be met with severe disciplinary action, reinforcing the judiciary’s commitment to upholding justice and ethical behavior.

When the Gavel Turns into a Weapon: Abuse of Power in the Hall of Justice

The consolidated cases against Judge Rexel M. Pacuribot revealed a disturbing pattern of abuse of power. Sherlita O. Tan, a court stenographer, and Johanna M. Villafranca, a Clerk II from the Parole and Probation Office, filed separate complaints detailing instances of sexual harassment and rape. Anonymous letters from concerned citizens further alleged a pattern of terrorizing and harassing employees, as well as an illicit relationship and children born out of wedlock. These allegations painted a grim picture of a judge who used his position not to uphold justice, but to exploit and demean those under his authority.

The investigation, led by Justice Teresita Dy-Liacco Flores, meticulously uncovered a web of deceit, intimidation, and coercion. Ms. Tan recounted a harrowing experience where Judge Pacuribot lured her to a motel under false pretenses, subjected her to rape, and continued to harass her in the workplace. Similarly, Ms. Villafranca detailed a nightmarish encounter where she was forcibly taken to a motel, sexually assaulted, and then blackmailed with compromising photos. The Investigating Justice found both women’s testimonies credible, highlighting the judge’s pattern of exploiting his moral ascendancy and using threats to silence his victims. The Court emphasized the unique vulnerability of subordinates in such situations, noting that their fear of losing their jobs often leads to silent submission.

Judge Pacuribot’s defense rested on denial and the claim that the complainants were motivated by revenge or “fatal attraction.” He argued that Ms. Tan’s behavior was inconsistent with that of a rape victim, pointing to her participation in social events and her delay in reporting the incidents. He also contended that Ms. Villafranca, being a well-connected and intelligent woman, would not allow herself to be victimized. However, the Court dismissed these arguments, recognizing that rape victims react differently and that Ms. Villafranca’s social standing was, in fact, a vulnerability, as she sought to protect her family from scandal. The Court also noted the implausibility of a “fatal attraction” given the judge’s reputation for terrorizing employees and his well-known extramarital affairs.

The Supreme Court anchored its decision on the **Code of Judicial Conduct**, which mandates that a judge should be the embodiment of competence, integrity, and independence. Canon II, Rule 2.01 specifically states:

A judge should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

The Court emphasized that judges are held to a higher standard of moral uprightness, both in their public and private lives, to maintain public confidence in the judiciary. The Court reasoned that Judge Pacuribot’s actions violated this code and undermined the integrity of the Judiciary.

Building on this principle, the Court highlighted that the actions of Judge Pacuribot are considered as gross misconduct and immorality prejudicial to the best interests of the service, therefore invoking Section 22 of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court. This gives the court the power to dismiss the respondent from the service and forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court may determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government owned or controlled corporations

The court in justifying the severity of the penalty cited Simbajon v. Esteban, the Supreme Court said:

No married woman would cry sexual assault, subject herself and her family to public scrutiny and humiliation, and strain her marriage in order to perpetuate a falsehood.

Furthermore, the Court pointed out that it was important to rule in favor of the complainants because “one will not act and prevaricate and cause damnation to one who brought him no harm or injury.”

The court used the doctrine of moral ascendancy that the respondent has because he is an officer of the court and his actions were aggravated by the fact that the complainants are his subordinates over whom he exercises control and supervision, he being the executive judge.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	Whether Judge Pacuribot’s actions constituted gross misconduct and immorality, warranting his dismissal from service. The Supreme Court considered the gravity of the sexual harassment and rape allegations against him.
What were the specific charges against Judge Pacuribot?	The charges included sexual harassment and rape filed by two female subordinates, as well as allegations of terrorizing employees and maintaining an illicit relationship.
What evidence did the complainants present?	The complainants presented detailed testimonies of the incidents, along with corroborating evidence such as text messages, cards, and medical records.
How did Judge Pacuribot defend himself?	Judge Pacuribot denied the charges, claiming that the complainants were motivated by revenge and that their allegations were improbable.
What factors did the Court consider in determining the credibility of the complainants?	The Court considered the consistency and spontaneity of their testimonies, as well as the unique vulnerability of subordinates in such situations.
What code of conduct did the Court say the respondent violated?	The Code of Judicial Conduct, particularly Canon I, Rule 1.01 and Canon II, Rule 2.01, which require judges to embody competence, integrity, and independence.
What was the Supreme Court’s ruling?	The Supreme Court found Judge Pacuribot guilty of gross misconduct and immorality and ordered his dismissal from service, with forfeiture of benefits and disqualification from re-employment.
What message does this ruling send to the judiciary?	This ruling sends a clear message that the judiciary will not tolerate any conduct that undermines its integrity and that judges will be held to the highest standards of moral uprightness.

This landmark decision serves as a strong deterrent against abuse of power within the judiciary. It reinforces the principle that those entrusted with administering justice must themselves be models of ethical behavior. The dismissal of Judge Pacuribot underscores the commitment of the Philippine Supreme Court to upholding the integrity of the judiciary and protecting the rights and dignity of all individuals.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: SHERLITA O. TAN vs. JUDGE REXEL M. PACURIBOT, A.M. No. RTJ-06-1982, December 14, 2007