Judged by his private morals

By Atty. Rolex T. Suplico

The case of EMMA J. CASTILLO, Complainant, vs. JUDGE MANUEL M. CALANOG, JR., Respondent, A.M. No. RTJ-90-447, promulgated by the Supreme Court en banc on July 12, 1991, documented the fall of one of the most powerful judges in the country: the Presiding Judge of Branch 76 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City and the President of the Phiippine Judges Association. As a law student at the nearby UP College of Law in Diliman, Quezon City and later as a new lawyer, I was in awe of Judge Manuel “Nonong” Calanog. 

The case started when the Supreme Court received a sworn complaint on January 17, 1990:

“Your Honors:

I would like to register this letter-complement against the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 76 who is likewise the incumbent President of the Philippine Judges Association, Judge Manuel M. Calanog, Jr., for immorality and conduct unbecoming of a public official.

Sometime in 1987, when I intervened in the case for (sic) intestate estate of my late common-law husband which was then pending before the RTC, Branch 94, Quezon City, where incidentally Judge Manuel M. Calanog, Jr. was temporarily holding office at that time, the latter was referred to me by an acquaintance of mine as a person who could assist me and help facilitate for (sic) the early termination of the case in my favor. Subsequently, I personally met Judge Manuel M. Calanog, Jr. in his office located at the 11th floor of the Quezon City Hall where he transferred. At the said meeting, he advised me to see him at his law office located in Mandaluyong, Metro Manila which I did. When I met him at noon, he invited me to eat in a restaurant and even asked me to ride with him in his car but instead, to my surprise, he took me to a motel where he made sexual advances on me. As he did not succeed in his evil design, he asked me if I will (sic) agree to the proposition that he be my sub-husband (sic) and promised to give me his condominium unit located at Pagasa Bliss Condominium, Quezon City, as well as to provide financial support for my two (2) minor children and place them in an exclusive school for girls. Due to confusion because of the untimely death of my common-law husband coupled with the persistent pleadings of Judge Manuel M. Calanog, Jr., he was able to convince me. Upon giving my consent, he immediately gave his condominium unit no. 19-22 at Pagasa Bliss Condominium, Quezon City, where I and my two (2) minor daughters reside up to the present. On May 27, 1989, as a result of our relationship, I gave birth to a baby boy which (sic) we named Jerome Christopher Calanog.

Judge Manuel M. Calanog, Jr. is very well-known to my two (2) minor daughters as they fondly called him as “Tito Nonong.”

From the time I gave birth to our son Jerome Christopher Calanog, said Judge Manuel M. Calanog, Jr. has refused to provide us financial support nor placed my two (2) minor daughters to an exclusive school as he had promised. Worst, to the present, he fails and refuses to pay the monthly installments of the condominium unit he gave to me despite being informed by the National Housing Authority that we will be evicted from the said place for failure to pay the same. Despite my repeated verbal demands for him to give us, or at least his son Jerome Christopher Calanog, financial support, Judge Manuel M. Calanog, Jr. just ignored my pleas.

May I then ask and pray that justice be given to me and my children or at least for my son Jerome Christopher Calanog (?) May I further request that the proper sanction be meted against Judge Manuel M. Calanog, Jr. for his conduct unbecoming of a public official and immorality?

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) EMMA J. CASTILLO

Thereafter, Judge Calanog filed 2 answers, stating that Emma “has expressly stated that she is no longer interested in pursuing the same (complaint) and therefore, pray that the said complaint be considered withdrawn.” The latter also filed a sworn letter-request which prayed that her complaint be withdrawn “because I (she) am no longer interested in pursuing it.”

Then, the Court referred the case to Associate Justice Gloria C. Paras of the Court of Appeals for investigation, report and recommendation.

At this point, Emma filed an Affidavit of Desistance where she totally denied the allegations in her complaint. She stated that she “began to be bothered by my own conscience inasmuch as what I have narrated therein are not true, especially the fact that I had an amorous relationship with him and that my child namely Jerome Christopher is his son and also the fact that I was given by him a condominium unit x x x; x x x.”

One of the witnesses, Jose Javier, “who had worked as court interpreter in the sala of the respondent for almost ten years” testified that, upon Judge Calanog’s request, he brought to Emma her allowances, paid her utility bills and later brought  and fetched her to and from the hospital where she had given birth. He added that as a “lay minister of Mary Immaculate Concepcion Parish Church at Pasig, Metro Manila who distributed Holy Communion during Holy Mass on Sundays, I considered to (sic) revolting to my conscience to be an errand boy by doing every now and then.”

The Court also asked the National Bureau of Investigation to conduct a discreet investigation and it confirmed the allegations to be true.

The case was then submitted for the determination of the Supreme Court, on 2 issues:

“1) Whether or not the “Affidavit of Desistance” has any effect on the continuation of the administrative case; and 2) Whether or not the circumstances shown are sufficient to convict the respondent judge for immorality and conduct unbecoming of a public official.”

First, the Court restated the doctrine that it “attaches no persuasive value to affidavits of desistance, especially when executed as an afterthought, as in the case at bar. As held in People v. Obina:

It would be a dangerous rule for courts to reject testimonies solemnly taken before the courts of justice simply because the witnesses who had given them later on changed their mind for one reason or another; for such rule would make solemn trials a mockery and place the investigation of truth at the mercy of unscrupulous witness.”

Second, it explained that, even if Emma has not filed her Affidavit of Desistance, it “would not have been swayed solely by her allegations, and we find from the testimony of Jose Javier that the former’s charges, indeed, rest on sufficient grounds.” Thus:

“As alleged by the complainant, verified by Justice Gloria C. Paras, and confirmed by Jose Javier and agents of the National Bureau of Investigation, Judge Calanog did establish an intimate, albeit immoral, relationship with complainant Emma Castillo although he, Judge Calanog, is a married man. Out of that liaison Emma Castillo gave birth to Judge Calanog’s child, Jerome Christopher, whom he housed in a condominium unit together with his (Jerome’s) mother and her two older children.”

The Court then held that:

“Judge Calanog has behaved in a manner not becoming of his robes and as a model of rectitude, betrayed the people’s high expectations, and diminished the esteem in which they hold the judiciary in general.

It is of no import that the evidence on record is not sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt the facts of concubinage having indeed existed and been committed. This is not a criminal case for concubinage but an administrative matter that invokes the power of supervision of this Court over the members of the judiciary.

The circumstances show a lack of circumspection and delicadeza on the part of the respondent judge by failing to avoid situations that make him suspect to committing immorality and worse, having that suspicion confirmed.”

The Court cited Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Ethics, which states that:

“Rule 1.01 — A judge should be the embodiment of competence, integrity, probity and independence.”

The Court said,

“The integrity and independence of the judiciary can be reduced to one common denominator: the judge — the individual who dispenses justice, and upon whose attributes depend the public perception of the judiciary.
Independence of the judiciary requires that the judge should be independent-minded, imbued with a sense of mission, a person of honor, integrity, courage and conviction.”

It added that “(u)nder Rule 140, Immorality is classified under ‘Serious Charges,’”  and punishable by “(d)ismissal from the service with forfeiture of benefits (except accrued leaves) and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office including a government-owned or controlled corporation; x x x.”

It stated that “(t)he 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 official is also judged by his private morals. The Code dictates that a judge, in order to promote public confidence 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.”

It noted that Judge Calanog, “in violating a judicial precept, has also committed a grave injustice upon the complainant, who had sought his assistance in expediting the intestate estate proceedings of her deceased common-law husband. The judge, who was in the first place, prohibited by the Code of Judicial Conduct 11 from intervening in a case in any court, took advantage of the complainant’s helplessness and state of material deprivation and persuaded her to become his mistress. The exploitation of women becomes even more reprehensible when the offender commits the injustice by the brute force of his position of power and authority, as in this case.”

The Supreme Court then dismissed Judge Manuel M. Calanog, Jr., for immorality “from the roll of judges, with prejudice to his reinstatement or appointment to any public office including a government-owned or controlled corporation, and forfeiture of retirement benefits, if any. Let a copy of this resolution be included in his record and be served on all courts throughout the land.”