Case: Avancena v.

Liwanag, 406 SCRA 300

Facts:
The complainant, Perlita Avancena charged Judge Ricardo P. Liwanag of the MTC San Jose del Monte,
Bulacan with violation of RA No. 3019, Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, in connection with criminal cases
wherein Avancena was accused for violation of BP 22 and being heard by Judge Liwanag.
On May 5, 1999, Avancena’s counsel filed a Motion to Postpone Promulgation and to Re-open Trial to Allow
Accused to Present Further Evidence. But Judge Liwanag denied the motion on the ground that she was
ably represented by counsel during the trial of the case.
Prior to the dismissal of her motion, Liwanag summoned Avancena to his chamber and told her that she will
be convicted unless she pay P1M. Avancena refused to pay since her unpaid balance was only P140,000
and there is no reason for her to pay P1M. Liwanag summoned Avancena again and told her to raise only
P500,000 if she could not afford the P1M and the cases will be archived.

Judge Liwanag denied all the allegations and argued that all the contentions are lies and fabricated. The
case was referred to Executive Judge Herrera of the RTC Malolos, Bulacan for investigation, report and
recommendation. Judge Herrera gave more weight to the testimonies of Avancena and concluded that the
charges against Liwanag are true. But he did not recommend a specific penalty to be meted out to respondent
judge.

Issue:
Whether or not the respondent judge Liwanag is guilty.

Ruling:
Yes. The Court finds noteworthy the period of almost four (4) months which elapsed from May 7, 1999, the
date originally set for promulgation of the decision of the criminal cases against Avancena, and August 27,
1999, the date it was actually promulgated. It indicates a deliberate effort on the part of the respondent judge
to delay the promulgation of the decision in order to give complainant more time to raise the money demanded
by him. Notably, respondent failed to satisfactorily explain the delay in the promulgation of the decision in
complainant’s cases.

In this case, it is not only improper for a judge to meet privately with the accused without the presence of the
complainant but the conduct of respondent shows that his decisions are influenced by monetary
considerations. His act alone of demanding money from a party-litigant in exchange for a favorable verdict
constitutes serious misconduct in office. The fact that the complainant was not able to give him the money
demanded does not make the offense of the respondent nor the penalty therefor, any lighter.

Therefore, Judge Ricardo P. Liwanag is DISMISSED from his service with prejudice to re-employment in any
government agency and GOCC and with forfeiture of all retirement benefits except accrued leave credits.