Judge borrows money from litigants, is fired

THE Supreme Court has fired a regional trial court (RTC) judge after he was found guilty of borrowing money from litigants in his court.

In an enbanc decision promulgated last February 4, the court dismissed Judge Bonifacio Macabaya of Cagayan de Oro City (CDO), Misamis Oriental RTC, Branch 20.

The court also forfeited the retirement benefits of Macabaya for gross misconduct.

Macabaya was also perpetually disqualified from holding any government position.

The case stemmed from the complaints of Leonaria Neri, spouses Abeto Salcedo Jr. and Jocelyn Salcedo, Evangeline Camposano, and Hugo Amorillo Jr.

All of them alleged that Macabaya sought them outside the courtroom and borrowed a large sum of money from them while their cases were pending before his sala.

The complainants signed sworn statements before the CDO RTC executive judge who forwarded the statements to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).

Subsequently, the OCA endorsed the case to the Supreme Court, which, in turn, referred it to a Court of Appeals justice for investigation.

Macabaya denied the allegations and claimed that the complainants were coerced to file a complaint against him on the instigation of an OCA official and other judges who were out to discredit him.

The high court gave Macabaya’s denial little weight, stressing that judges must adhere to the highest standards of judicial conduct and public accountability.

In a related development, the Supreme Court, in a per curiam decision, also found retired judge Joselito Villarosa of Makati RTC Branch 66 guilty of four counts of gross ignorance of the law and for violating a directive of the Supreme Court to transfer commercial cases to another RTC branch.

The court fined Villarosa P140,000 and ordered the forfeiture of all his retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits and perpetual disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government- owned and - controled corporations.

The OCA, which investigated the allegations, found Villarosa guilty of violating a Supreme Court directive and of four counts of gross ignorance of the law.

The Supreme Court adopted the OCA’s recommendations but modified the penalty.