EVA LUCIA Z. GEROY vs. HON. DAN R. CALDERON
FACTS:
Eva Lucia Z. Geroy (complainant) filed a complaint against Judge Dan R. Calderon (respondent) of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 26, Medina, Misamis Oriental, with gross immorality for having an extra-marital affair with her. She alleges that at first she was introduced by her cousin Cesar Badilas (Badilas) to respondent in a Rotary Club dinner on November 30, 2002 and after that, respondent always communicated with her, visited her at her house and showered her with food and gifts, making her believe that he was single or separated. They spent most of their time together in his house where complainant would sleep over during weekdays and spend entire weekends with respondent, dine in public places, watch movies, go to malls, groceries and hear mass together. Respondent lent her money and she ran errands for him such as making reservations for his trips and purchasing items for his house, encode decisions, pay bills and encash checks for him. Respondent paid her tuition in a caregiver course and gave her a cell phone for an e-load business.
However, complainant felt she was being abused by respondent, such as when he wanted to take a picture of them naked after they had sexual contact, when he asked her to buy abortive pills because his son impregnated his girlfriend, and when he (respondent) forced her to utter vulgar words during their intercourse.
In August 2005, complainant went to Xavier University where respondent was a professor, and respondent uttered hurtful words towards her. On December 24, 2005, complainant received a call from respondent and his wife degrading and threatening On March 21, 2007, complainant saw respondent in a restaurant with a woman and when she approached respondent, he cursed and looked angrily at her and asked the guard to drive her out. Respondent then went to his car and locked the doors. Complainant knocked at the window near the driver's seat but respondent arrogantly looked at her and maneuvered his car, nearly hitting her, as he sped past her.
Complainant avers that she was expecting that if her relationship with respondent would end, there should be a friendly talk and a peaceful closure between them, but none took place and further claims that respondent is in another relationship and she is filing the present case, not just to put an end to the immoral conduct of respondent, but to prevent other women from being victimized by him.
In his Comment dated July 24, 2007, respondent denies that he had any illicit relationship with complainant; and claims that her allegations are completely manufactured to suit her elaborate plan to extort money from him. He claims that complainant had no regular job and expressed dire financial need; so he hired her to encode simple case facts and test questions in her house using respondent's laptop; that it was arranged that he would stop by her house to hand her materials for typing, and later pick up the same from her residence; that she later offered to run other errands for him in exchange for a reasonable fee. He further alleged that complainant had sneaked into his house and the upper bedrooms, where she took pictures alleging that sexual activity had taken place therein and she also sent text messages to his wife, children, relatives and friends and even went to his wife's dental clinic telling her that she was his woman.
On March 21, 2007, complainant saw respondent in an eatery and then tried to board his car. In her frustration, she broke the car's side mirror and threw the same at the departing car. On April 24, 2007, while respondent was in his car along Pabayo St., complainant suddenly appeared and again tried to enter the locked car; failing to do so, she started hitting the car with her umbrella and blocked the car's way, forcing respondent to get down the car and wrest the umbrella away. As the car left, complainant grabbed the car's rear plate number, destroying its frame.
ISSUE:
Whether the complainant has proved by substantial evidence the gross immorality of the respondent.
RULING:
There were admissions on respondent's part which revealed the existence of an illicit affair. Complainant was able to disclose that respondent had skin tags between his thighs which respondent admitted. Complainant would not have had knowledge of such intimate and concealed marks unless she was able to see respondent naked. While respondent claimed that he may have divulged such fact in one of their casual conversations, such disclosure goes against respondent's very claim that what they had was only a platonic employer-employee relationship. The pictures taken by complainant showing the rooms in the house and her familiarity with the same proves that complainant had access to all the rooms in the house and would also show that some of their sexual trysts took place in respondent's house. Respondent also asked complainant to assist him in the solemnization of three marriages when he could have utilized a staff from his office. From these, it could be inferred that complainant's services were utilized so that they could be together in the evening after the reception. Respondent also asked complainant to encode his draft orders/decisions when he has four stenographers. Respondent, in doing so, disregarded the fact that by giving complainant such encoding jobs, he was compromising the integrity of the court records.
Despite the finding of immorality, the records revealed that complainant was equally guilty, if not more so, in the whole sordid affair. Considering his length of service and the fact that this was the first time that respondent was charged with immorality or any other administrative offense, the penalty of six months suspension should suffice.
FACTS:
Eva Lucia Z. Geroy (complainant) filed a complaint against Judge Dan R. Calderon (respondent) of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 26, Medina, Misamis Oriental, with gross immorality for having an extra-marital affair with her. She alleges that at first she was introduced by her cousin Cesar Badilas (Badilas) to respondent in a Rotary Club dinner on November 30, 2002 and after that, respondent always communicated with her, visited her at her house and showered her with food and gifts, making her believe that he was single or separated. They spent most of their time together in his house where complainant would sleep over during weekdays and spend entire weekends with respondent, dine in public places, watch movies, go to malls, groceries and hear mass together. Respondent lent her money and she ran errands for him such as making reservations for his trips and purchasing items for his house, encode decisions, pay bills and encash checks for him. Respondent paid her tuition in a caregiver course and gave her a cell phone for an e-load business.
However, complainant felt she was being abused by respondent, such as when he wanted to take a picture of them naked after they had sexual contact, when he asked her to buy abortive pills because his son impregnated his girlfriend, and when he (respondent) forced her to utter vulgar words during their intercourse.
In August 2005, complainant went to Xavier University where respondent was a professor, and respondent uttered hurtful words towards her. On December 24, 2005, complainant received a call from respondent and his wife degrading and threatening On March 21, 2007, complainant saw respondent in a restaurant with a woman and when she approached respondent, he cursed and looked angrily at her and asked the guard to drive her out. Respondent then went to his car and locked the doors. Complainant knocked at the window near the driver's seat but respondent arrogantly looked at her and maneuvered his car, nearly hitting her, as he sped past her.
Complainant avers that she was expecting that if her relationship with respondent would end, there should be a friendly talk and a peaceful closure between them, but none took place and further claims that respondent is in another relationship and she is filing the present case, not just to put an end to the immoral conduct of respondent, but to prevent other women from being victimized by him.
In his Comment dated July 24, 2007, respondent denies that he had any illicit relationship with complainant; and claims that her allegations are completely manufactured to suit her elaborate plan to extort money from him. He claims that complainant had no regular job and expressed dire financial need; so he hired her to encode simple case facts and test questions in her house using respondent's laptop; that it was arranged that he would stop by her house to hand her materials for typing, and later pick up the same from her residence; that she later offered to run other errands for him in exchange for a reasonable fee. He further alleged that complainant had sneaked into his house and the upper bedrooms, where she took pictures alleging that sexual activity had taken place therein and she also sent text messages to his wife, children, relatives and friends and even went to his wife's dental clinic telling her that she was his woman.
On March 21, 2007, complainant saw respondent in an eatery and then tried to board his car. In her frustration, she broke the car's side mirror and threw the same at the departing car. On April 24, 2007, while respondent was in his car along Pabayo St., complainant suddenly appeared and again tried to enter the locked car; failing to do so, she started hitting the car with her umbrella and blocked the car's way, forcing respondent to get down the car and wrest the umbrella away. As the car left, complainant grabbed the car's rear plate number, destroying its frame.
ISSUE:
Whether the complainant has proved by substantial evidence the gross immorality of the respondent.
RULING:
There were admissions on respondent's part which revealed the existence of an illicit affair. Complainant was able to disclose that respondent had skin tags between his thighs which respondent admitted. Complainant would not have had knowledge of such intimate and concealed marks unless she was able to see respondent naked. While respondent claimed that he may have divulged such fact in one of their casual conversations, such disclosure goes against respondent's very claim that what they had was only a platonic employer-employee relationship. The pictures taken by complainant showing the rooms in the house and her familiarity with the same proves that complainant had access to all the rooms in the house and would also show that some of their sexual trysts took place in respondent's house. Respondent also asked complainant to assist him in the solemnization of three marriages when he could have utilized a staff from his office. From these, it could be inferred that complainant's services were utilized so that they could be together in the evening after the reception. Respondent also asked complainant to encode his draft orders/decisions when he has four stenographers. Respondent, in doing so, disregarded the fact that by giving complainant such encoding jobs, he was compromising the integrity of the court records.
Despite the finding of immorality, the records revealed that complainant was equally guilty, if not more so, in the whole sordid affair. Considering his length of service and the fact that this was the first time that respondent was charged with immorality or any other administrative offense, the penalty of six months suspension should suffice.
No comments:
Post a Comment