G.R. No. MTJ-99-1207. November 21, 2001
NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, complainant, vs. JUDGE FRANCISCO D. VILLANUEVA, respondent.

FACTS

The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) filed an administrative complaint against Judge Francisco D. Villanueva for alleged illegal recruitment, violation of Republic Act No. 7610 , and immorality. The complaint stemmed from incidents where three young women, Jobeth Diocales, Janet Ramas, and Juvylyn Requilmen, were recruited from Davao and brought to Manila. They testified that upon arrival, they were brought to a house where they met Marian Herrera, who introduced respondent Judge Villanueva as her live-in partner. The witnesses stated they saw the judge and Herrera asleep together, and they were subsequently made to work as guest relations officers (GROs) in nightclubs, allegedly under the judge’s knowledge and involvement.
Judge Villanueva denied all allegations. He claimed Marian Herrera was merely a distant relative and his role was only as a business adviser. He denied any amorous relationship and any participation in the recruitment or employment of the three women. His wife corroborated his claim regarding the nature of his relationship with Herrera.

ISSUE

Whether Judge Francisco D. Villanueva is administratively liable for immorality and conduct unbecoming a judicial officer.

RULING

Yes, Judge Villanueva is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found the testimonies of the three complainants to be credible, positive, and clear. They had no apparent motive to falsely accuse the judge. Their detailed accounts of living in properties associated with the judge and Herrera, seeing them together in an intimate setting, and the judge’s involvement in their subsequent employment as GROs constituted substantial evidence. In administrative proceedings, only substantial evidence—such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate—is required, and this standard was met.
The Court rejected the judge’s denial of an illicit relationship. The evidence showed a degree of familiarity and cohabitation inconsistent with a mere business or familial consultancy. A judge’s conduct, both inside and outside the courtroom, must be beyond reproach to preserve public confidence in the judiciary. Engaging in an extramarital affair constitutes immorality, a serious charge under Section 8, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court. Considering the respondent had already retired from service and could no longer be dismissed or suspended, the Court imposed a fine of Forty Thousand Pesos (P40,000.00) as the appropriate penalty.