AidaR. Campos,Alistair R. Campos,andCharmaineR. Camposv. JudgeEliseoM. Campos A.M. No. MTJ-10-1761, February 8, 2012 Carpio, J.

FACTS: This is a complaint for serious misconduct, immorality and dishonesty filed by complainants against respondent, former Presiding Judge of the MTC of Bayugan, Agusan del Sur. Complainant Aida and respondent were married in 1981 and had two children, complainants Alistair and Charmaine. In 2008, respondent filed a petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage, alleging that he and Aida were both psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations. For his part, respondent is a homosexual who could not be intimate with his wife unless he imagined he was with another man, while his wife had affairs with other men as a result of his homosexuality. To her defense, Aida denied the allegations and filed for legal separation. According to her, respondent wanted their marriage annulled so that he could marry another woman with whom he was having a relationship. In the meantime, a separate case was pending against the respondent, to which a certain parcel of registered land might be taken from the their property in the event of loss. Facts show that the title to such land was kept by respondent in his drawer. When respondent could not find the title in his usual place for safekeeping, he sought the advice of the Register of Deeds who told him to execute the affidavit of loss, to which he did. Respondent then registered the title but in the name of Alistair, a minor at that time. ISSUE: Is respondent guilty of immorality, dishonesty, and serious misconduct? HELD: NO, respondent is not guilty of immorality, dishonesty and serious misconduct but only simple misconduct. First, the complainants failed to present any proof of respondents alleged relationship with another woman, so as to justify a charge for immorality. There was no evidence presented that respondent engaged in scandalous conduct that would warrant the imposition of disciplinary action against him. However, the Court reminded respondent of the judge's duty to conduct himself in a way that is consistent with the dignity of the judicial office. As such, he must comport himself at all times in such a manner that his conduct, official or otherwise, can bear the most searching scrutiny of the public that looks up to him as the epitome of integrity and justice. Second, respondent was not guilty of dishonesty as regards the declaration of loss of title because respondent did not appear to have acted in bad faith or committed dishonesty in executing the affidavit of loss of the title to the property. As shown by the facts, he merely took the advice of the Register of Deeds in the execution of the document. Third, while respondent has not committed any serious misconduct, it is clear that respondent is guilty of simple misconduct. In this case, respondent knew at that time of the registration of the property that he had a pending case and that he could possibly lose the case. In order to manipulate the situation and taking advantage of his knowledge of the law, respondent caused the registration of the property in Alistairs name with the intention of defrauding a possible judgment-obligee. Clearly, it was an improper behavior that warrants a disciplinary sanction by the Court.