7/21/2019 Liwanag v Lustre Digest

1/1

Facts: A proceeding for the violation of BP 22 was led by the complainant with the

Municipal Trial ourt of alamba! "aguna! presided by herein respondent#

omplainant "ualhati M# "iwanag alleges that on several occasions!

respondent $udge Paterno "ustre re%uired of her se&ual favors in return for

the processing of complainant's case led with the respondent $udge# (n one

of the several occasions that respondent $udge allegedly had molested thecomplainant! respondent allegedly caressed complainant's breast and

re%uired her to perform )fellatio* for him+ and! in one instance! had ta,en her

to -iverview -esort in alamba! "aguna and! as complainant said! ).e

ordered me to perform /fellatio/ on him and ( obeyed# There was blood that

oo0ed from his penis# ( also saw blac, rashes on his body! especially on his

legs# Before we left! he told me to see him again on $uly 1 in his o3ce#*

4ucceeding se&ual favors were re%uested by the -espondent and! when

complainant refuses to do so! respondent would allegedly delay the trial for

her case#

(ssue: 5hether or not -espondent has committed impropriety in the performance of

his duties#

.eld: 6es# -espondent has failed to live up to the high standard of conduct re%uired

of members of the bench# .e grossly violated his duty to uphold the integrity

of the 7udiciary and to avoid impropriety not only in his public but in his

private life as well+ all to the grave pre7udice of the administration of 7ustice#

-espondent does not deny that he is the one appearing with complainant in

the photographs submitted as evidence by the omplainant# .e conveniently

testied that somebody else had posed for the photograph! but this is

obviously an afterthought# -espondent made this assertion almost a year

after complainant led her complaint# .e could have done it as early as

8ctober 199 in his comment to complainant's charges# (f the pictures werenot ta,en at -iverview! where were they ta,en and why was respondent with

complainant at that time; (f! indeed! there was a legitimate reason for

complainant and respondent to be seen together at the time and place

depicted in the photographs! respondent would have wasted no time

e&plaining where they were ta,en and under what circumstances! in order to

e&tricate himself from his present predicament# This! he failed to do# The

reason for this! we believe! is that he could not simply o# For the serious misconduct of

respondent! the penalty provided for in -ule 1?! 4ection 1! of the -ules of

ourt! by way of ne in the ma&imum amount should be imposed#