:\p.r.s~.

,li

I .
t s

31\epublic of tbe tlbilippines

$Upreme (!Court
;fffilanila

EN BANC

ALDRIN B. MAGAOAY, A.M. No. MTJ-23-017 [Formerly

Complainant, OCA IPI No.19-3073-MTJ]

PRESENT:

GESMUNDO, C.J,
LEONEN,
CAGUIOA,*
HERNANDO,
LAZARO-JAVIER,
-versus- INTING,
ZALA:rvtEDA,
LOPEZ, M.,
GAERLAN,
ROSARIO,
LOPEZ, J.,
DIMAAMPAO,
MARQUEZ,
KHO, JR., and
HON. ATENEONES • S. SINGH, JJ
BACALE, .PRESIDING
JUDGE, lVIUNICIPAL
CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT,
BILIRAN-CABUCGA YAN, Promulgated:
BILIRAN,
Respondent. _J_ul_y_2_3_,_2_02_4_ _ _ _ _ __
• ~
X ·- ---------------- ¥-------------------------------------------------------------------X
DECISiON

* On official leave.
Decision 2 A.M. No. MTJ-23-017
[Formerly OCA IPI No. 19-3073-MTJ]

PERCURIAM:

The Case

This administrative complaint 1 charges respondent Judge Ateneones S.

Bacale (Judge Bacale), Presiding Judge, of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court
(MCTC), ofBiliran-Cabucgayan, Biliran, with gross misconduct in violation
of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Antecedents

Complainant Aldrin Magaoay (Magaoay) alleged that he is a

pharmaceutical supplier/distributor based in Biliran. In 2016, Judge Bacale
informed him of a project where four hospitals in Manila needed medicine
supplies worth PHP 129,000,000.00, and that the Executive Secretary of
Mayor Joseph Estrada (Mayor Estrada) was his (Judge Bacale's) wife,
Romilda Amago Bacale (Romilda), who can facilitate the procurement of
medicines, implying that they need not undergo the required bidding process.
Judge Bacale demanded from him an initial sum of PHP. 100,000.00,
supposedly for his company's accreditation. Magaoay personally handed the
amount to Judge Bacale in .full confidence that he would be assisted in
executing a contract with the City of Manila. Judge Bacale then instructed
Magaoay to meet with a ce~in Joaquin Ashley Dela Cruz (Dela Cruz), an
alleged court employee. 2 As will be further shown below, during the TIB
proceedings Magaoay clarified that Dela Cruz was not a court employee but
only a personal assistant or 'boy" of Judge Bacale.

Romilda and Dela Cruz constantly demanded from him certain amounts
of money supposedly for the execution of a project contract. For the next few
years, he had given Dela Cruz and Romilda a total of around PHP
20,000,000.00, either through bank transfer or by personal delivery. 3

\\lhen he eventually realized that the project would never materialize

and that .he was only being deceived into giving more money, he filed the
present administrative complaint against Judge Bacale for gross misconduct.4

Rollo, Vol. .1, pp. 7--12.

2
Rollo, Vol. 2, pp. 258-259.
3 Id at 263-264.
4
Id. at 264.
Decision 3 A.M. No. MTJ-23-017
[Formerly OCA IPI No. 19-3073-MTJ]

In his Comment, 5 Judge Bacale admitted that he met Magaoay but

denied that he conspired with his wife Romilda regarding the procurement of
medicine. In fact, they have been separated for more than 30 years. It was only
in 2013 that they again started communicating with each other after his house
in Tacloban was destroyed by typhoon Yolanda. He did not know the nature
of her work, the people she was working with, and the transactions she
entered, except those she would occasionally relay to him. He was asked by
his wife to "look for a supplier of medicines." He claimed that it was his wife
who arranged his meeting with Magaoay and that when he was handed an
envelope by complainant, he did not know what it was for, nor did he open it.
He never represented nor promised that he eould secure a contract for the
supply of medicines to hospitals in Manila. 6

Proceedings before the Office of the Executive Director and

the Judicial Integrity Board

In its Report an4 Recomrnend~tion7 dated March 4, 2022, the Office of

the Executive Director recommended to the Judicial Integrity Board (IlB) that
the complaint should be subject to formal investigation, since it appears from
the records that Judge Bacale's involvement in the anomalous transaction was
more than just an innocent messenger.

In its Report8 dated April 3, 2023, the IlB found a prima facie. case and
held that the substantial factual issue of whether Judge Bacale conspired with
his wife in defrauding Magaoay must be resolved. It recommended to the
Court that the administrative complaint be re-docketed as a regular
administrative matter a11ci a formal investigation be conducted. The Court
approved the JJB's recommendation through its Resolution 9 dated July 3,
2023. Consequently, the IlB set the case Jor hearing and during which, the
parties prese.nted their respective testimonial and documentary evidence. 10

Magaoay testified that in 2016, his friend, Bill Flores (Flores), asked
him if he wanted to do business with the City of Manila. Flores claimed that
he is acquainted with a certain judge who can help him in securing contracts
from the City of tv1anila. In July 2016, he was intro.duced to Judge Bacale,
who represented_ himself as the husband of Romilda; the Executive Secretary
of then Mayor Estrada.
.
judge Bacale showed him a 11st
, . .
of available c_ontracts .
5
• Rollo, Vol. 1, pp. 421-423: •
6
Id at 421-422.
7
Id at 424-429.
8 Id at 424-429, Tne Report was penned by Justice Romeo J. Callejo, Sr. (Ret.), and concurred in by
Justices Angelina $9-ridoval-Gutierrez {Ret.), Sesinado E. Villon (Rct.), Rodolfo A. Ponferrada (Ret.).,
and Cielito M. Mindaro-Grulla (Ret.) of the Judicial Integrity Board, Supreme Court.
9
Id at 439-440.
10
Rollo, Vol. 2,. p. 261.,
Decision 4 A.M. No. MTJ-23-017
[Formerly OCA IPI No. 19-3073-MTJ]

They chose four hospitals to which he could allegedly sell medical supplies
worth up to PHP 50,000,000.00. Judge Bacale instructed Magaoay to give him
all the necessary documents on their next meeting, including the amount of
PHP 100,000.00 as fee for him to "lock in" the contracts. 11

They had their second meeting in August 2016 at Solaire Hotel in Pasay
City. Before their meeting, Judge Bacale reminded Magaoay to bring cash,
not a check. When they met at Solaire, Judge Bacale showed Magaoay t;he
book-bound documents ready for submission to the City of Manila and then
Magaoay handed Judge Bacale an envelope with PHP 100,000.00 cash. Judge
Bacale counted the money before securing it inside his sling bag. Without the
knowledge of Judge Bacale, he took a photograph of him while counting the
money. The meeting ended with Judge Bacale thanking and assuring Magaoay
that he would give the documents to his wife. When asked about the bidding
process; Judge Bacale answered "that is why you have insiders, my wife will
take care of that." 12 _

Months later, upon his inquiry, Judge Bacale informed him that he
already talked to his- wife and that the project may be implemented the
following year. Judge Bacale introduced him to "one of his men" named Dela
Cruz. According to Judge Bacale, Dela Cruz will give him instructions on the
next phase of the project. As stated, when asked by Justice Ponferrada whether
Dela Cruz was indeed a court employee, Magaoay clarified that Dela Cruz
was only a personal assistant or "boy" of Judge Bacale. 13 In March 2017, he
11
Id. at 261-262.
12 Id.
13 TSN, Aldrin B. Magaoay, August 23, 2023, pp. 62-63.
JUSTICE PONFERRADA:
You said earlier that this Ashley received some money from you, correct?
[MAGAOAY]:
Yes, your Honor.
JUSTICE PONFERRADA:
Is he a member oft.lle court of the respondent or not?
[MAGAOAY]:
He's a member.
JUSTICE PONFERRADA:
What is his position?
[MAGAOAY]:
Something like an errand boy.
JUSTICE PONFERRADA:
There is no "court effand boy" position in the court, so does this mean that you do not know?
[MAGAOAY]: ..
Actually, I don't know his item iri fu'eir c,rcle, Your Honor.
JUSTICE PONFERRADA:
What is your basis for saying that he's a member of the court staff? _
[MAGAOAY], •
You mean the court, Your Honor, Biliran court?
JUSTICE PONFERRADA: •
Yes.
[MAGAOAY]
Decision· 5 A.M. No. MTJ-23-017
[Formerly OCA IPI No. 19-3073-MTJ]

met with Dela Cruz, who explained to him that he needed to buy three bid
documents for the project amounting to PHP 60,000.00. One would be for his
company while the two others would be for "dummy companies." He paid the
amowit through online· deposit. 14

iOver the next three years, Dela Cruz regularly texted him, asking him
to p~y for certain documents. Each time, he complied by depositing the money
either in Dela Cruz's or Romilda's account. He was aware that he was
engaging in an illegal transaction, but since he was dealing with Judge Bacale,
he t0ok his word as an assurance that he could secure contracts from the City
of Manila. When the total amount deposited reached PHP 19,863,000.00
withiout any progress in the projects, he realized that Judge Bacale, in
con~piracy with Dela Cruz and Romilda, had-been defrauding him. 15
I

Consequently, he filed an administrative complaint against Judge

Bacale, as well as with criminal cases against the latter, Dela Cruz, and
Romilda for estafa, and violation of Republic Act No. 10175, also known as
Cybercrime Prevention Act, and of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019.
He admitted though that after the criminal and administrative cases were filed,
Romilda had started to deposit PHP 20,000.00 to PHP 30,000.00 to his
account to partially return his money but he cannot tell exactly how much was
already returned to him. 16
!
I

jJudge Bacale testified that he is the Presiding Judge ofMCTC, Biliran-

Cabµcgayan, Biliran and he has been a judge for 17 years. He met Magaoay
in a hotel in Quezon City a long time ago. The meeting was pre-arranged by
his wife, who only instructed him to get some documents from Magaoay.
After several days, Magaoay called him to meet at Solaire Hotel. Again, he
onli retrieved from Magaoay some documents as requested by his wife, as
well as a brown envelope containing money. He did not bother to open the
envdope or count the money inside. After said occassion, he never saw or
communicated with Magaoay again. The whole time, he only acted as a
messenger for his wife. He assumes that the complaint was filed only to
pressure his wife to return the money she owed Magaoay .17

During cross-examination, Judge· Bacale was shown photos of him

apparently holding a brown envelope and counting money. He said that it was
the first time he saw those photos. When asked as to what he was doing at the

No, Your Honor, He's not a member of the Biliran court, He's just a "boy," I'm sorry to say that word,
personal assistant, what I mean.
14
Rollo, Vol. 2, 262-263.
15
Id. at 263.
16
Id. at 263.
17
Id. at 265-266.
Decision 6 A.M. No. MTJ-23-017
[Formerly OCA IPI No. 19-3073-MTJ]

time the photographs were taken, he replied that he could not recall anymore.
He maintained that he did not count the money and just received the envelope.
He then gave the envelope to his wife as soon as he got home. 18

He went on to explain that he and his wife have already been separated
for 30 years. When typhoon Yolanda struck Leyte and completely destroyed
his house, it was his. wife who helped him get back on his feet. He admitted
that he was aware that his transactions with Magaoay were illegal, but he was
only complying with his wife's instructions to show his gratitude for her after
everything she had done for him post-Yolanda. 19

Romilda testified that she was an Administrative Officer IV at the

Office of the City Mayor of Manila. She worked with a certain Mr. Pablo
Casimiran (Casimiran), a consultant to Mayor Estrada, and Ms. Shiani
Madayag (Madayag), Mayor Estrada's Secretary. As part of her work, she
would look for suppliers of medicine for the public hospitals of the City of
Manila. Casimiran instructed her to meet Magaoay. Due to her heavy
workload, she asked her husband to be the one to meet Magaoay instead and
to retrieve from the l~tt~r: _scnne documents regarding the project. Later,
Casimiran informed her that she should get a PHP 100,000.00 accreditation
fee from Magaoay. She relayed the instruction to her husband, who then
obtained. the accreditation ,:·fee from Magaoay. Every time Casimiran and
Madayag would require advances from Magaoay, she would tell Magaoay to
deposit the advances to either her accmlmt or the account of Dela Cruz. She
realized later on that the bidding documents Madayag sent to her were fake.
Outright, she promised Magaoaythat she would return all the money he paid
for the project. 20

On cross-examination, she admitted that she received in her account

around PHP 18,000,000.00, which she gave to Casimiran who then gave the
said amount to Madayag, albeit without any receipt or document as proof. As
of that day, she has returned almost PHP 7,000,000.00 to Magaoay. She tried
obtaining the money from Casimiran and Madayag, but both of them were
always in the hospital due to cancer. Then, Casimirah died in 2017. She
maintained that her husband was not involved in the project. It was too late
when she realized the illegality of his participation.21 • •

18 Id at 267.
19
Id at 266-267.
20
Id at 267-268.
21
Id. at 268-269.
Decision 7 A.M. No. MTJ-23-017
[Formerly OCA IPI No. 19-3073-MTJ]

Report and Recommendation of the-Judicial Integrity Board

In its Report and Recommendation.22 dated January 17, 2024, the JIB
found Judge Bacale liable for gross misconduct constituting violations of
Sections 1 and 2, Canon 2 and Sections l and 2, Canon 4 of the Code of
Judicial Conduct. The JIB recommended that Judge Bacale be dismissed from
the service, with forfeiture of all or part of his benefits as the Court may
determine; and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any
public office. Further, the JIB found that Judge Bacale also violated Sections
1, 2, and 12, Canon II and Section 2, Canon III of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) and recommended that he be
disbarred. 23

It noted that although Magaoay filed a Verified Motion/Manifestation24

that he is no longer pursuing the case and is withdrawing his Formal Offer of
Evidence, the investigation of the administrative complaint subsists as the
Court has the power and .duty to root out misconduct from among its
employees. 25 Thus:

ACCORDINGLY, the Judicial Integrity Board respectfully

RECOMMENDS to the Honorable Supreme Court that:

1. Presiding Judge Ateneones S. Bacale, Municipal Circuit Trial Court,

Biliran-Cabucgayan, Biliran, be found GIDLTY of gross misconduct
constituting violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct; and be
DISMISSED from the service, with FORFEITURE of all or -part of
the benefits as the Supreme Court may determine, and
DISQUALIFICATION from reinstatement or appointment to any
public office, including government-owned or controlled corporations.
Provided, however, that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include
accrued ieave credits; and

2. Respondent Judge Bacale be DISBARRED for violation of Sections 1,

2, and 12, Canon II, and Section 2, Canon III of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and Accountability, and his name be ORDERED
STRICKEN from the Roll of Attomeys. 26

22 Id. at 258-288. The Report and Recommendation dated January 17, 2024 was penned by Justice Cielito
N. Mindaro-Grulla (Ret.) and concurred in by Justices Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez (Ret.) and Justice
Rodolfo A. Ponferrada (Ret.) of the Judicial Integrity Board, Supreme Court.
23
Id. at 282-286.
24
Rollo, Vol. 1, pp. 7.15-716.
25
Rollo, Vol. 2, pp. 270-271.
26
Id. at 287.
Decision 8 A.M. No. MTJ-23-017
[Formerly OCA IPI No. 19-3073-MTJ]

Our Ruling

The Court resolves to adopt and approve with modification the Report
and Recommendation27 dated January 17, 2024 of the JIB.

First off, the purpose ofMagaoay in filing the present case to allegedly
recover the money from Judge Bacale's wife is irrelevant vis-a-vis the real
nature of the present administrative case which aims to determine whether
Judge Bacale is still qualified to continue as a me~ber of the judiciary.

Notably, Judge Bacale did not even refute that he met Magaoay on two
occasions and received money from the latter relative to the project in Manila.
He was aware of the illegal transaction between his wife and Magaoay. In
fact, he even ·assured Magaoay that he could facilitate the award to him by the
City of Manila ofthe supply contract for medicines worth PHP 50,000,000.00
without the need of going .
through the . procurement process. Magaoay
'•

testified:

ATTY. VALLEJO:

And what are the matters taken in your meeting with the said
respondent Judge?

MAGAOAY:

During our first meeting, he introduced himself, and his wife is the
Executive Secretary of then Mayor Joseph Estrada of [the] City of Manila.
So, with those promises, that he can facilitate in giving me some business,
I mean, delivering some drugs and medicines in the City of Manila.

Since he introduced his wife to be as (sic) the Executive Secretary

of then Mayor Joseph Estrada, he said "I can facilitate your company to get
in O''. During the meeting, he showed me some list of contracts, "So this
will be yours, if we can agree."

ATTY.VALLEJO:

You mentioned "I can facilitate." Who in particular told you that, "I
can facilitate"?

27
Id. at 258-288.
Decision 9 A.M. No. MTJ-23-017
[Formerly_ OCA IPINo. 19-3073-MTJ]

MAGAOAY:

Judge Bacale himself, sir.

JUSTICE GUTIERREZ:

What was the natui-e of that transaction?

MAGAOAY:

I will be delivering drugs and medicines in the City of Manila, Your

Honor.

JUSTICE GUTIERREZ:

You will be supplying?

MAGAOAY:

Yes, Your Honor, I will be supplying drugs a..11.d medicines in the

City of Manila.

JUSTICE GUTIERREZ:

Counsel, continue.

ATTY.VALLEJO:

Yes, Your Honor. Did he mention a certain amount with regards

those particular transactions? To supp-ly drugs and medicines in the City of
Manila?

MAGAOAY:

I remember sir, he showed me a document like 50 million, it does

not end there, because he assured me, "once you get in, this will be [a]
continuous project."28

28 TSN, Aldrin B. Magaoay, August 23, 2023, pp. 25-28.

~
Decision 10 A.M. No. MTJ-23-017
. [Fonnerly OCA IPI No. 19-3073-MTJ]

I know the bidding process, Your Honor, but I also know how it is
b~ing done; sad to say, in the government. That's why, when [Dela Cruz]
told me that, there's a project, you need to buy three bid documents, so that
it will be sure that it will [be] yours already. For a bidding there must be
three suppliers to submit bid documents so that it would appear a perfect
bidding. Since I knew already the system, he told me, "[okay,] you have to
pay for the three bidding documents, so it will be yours." So I asked him
(referring to [Judge Bacale]) "How about the bidding?" "No, no, that is why
you have insiders, my wife will take care of that." And I'm talking to a
judge, Your Honor, so I readily believe what he is saying, so I readily gave
the money. That is the system so I accumulated almost PHP 20,000,000.00
by giving deposits. 29

JUSTICE GUTIERREZ:

He (Judge Bacale) assured you that you will be the supplier of

medicines in these four hospitals?

MAGAOAY:

Yes, Your Honor. By way of saying that "my wife is the Executive
Secretary, and you will be in good hands."

JUSTICE PONFERRADA:

No[w], you said earlier that you will give what you agreed upon, did
I hear you right, Mr. Witness?

MAGAOAY:

Yes, Your Honor.

JUSTICE PONFERRADA:

Why? What was agreed upon?

MAGAOAY:

Yes, Your Honor. That I will be in, Your Honor. His term is "locked-
in money". So, during the first meeting, once you send your legal

29
Id at 56.
Decision 11 A.M. No. MTJ-23-017
[Formerly OCA IPI No. 19-3073-MTJ]

documents, prepare for it, book bind then wait for my call, then we will
meet. That is that time you give the money.

JUSTICE PONFERRADA:

How much money was agreed upon?

MAGAOAY:

That I will give himPHP 100,000.00, your Honor. 30

ATTY.VALLEJO:

Do you have any document to prove that indeed, he accepted this

PHP 100,000.00?

MAGAOAY:

Actually, Judge, paano ba ito? So habang binibigay, binibilang, I

took photograph, sir.

ATTY. VALLEJO:

Do you have that particular picture showing that respondent Judge

actually accepted this PHP 100,000.00?

MAGAOAY:

Yes sir. I can readily show to this Honorable Board.

ATTY.VALLEJO:

Can you present that particular picture to this Honorable Board?

MAGAOAY:

Yes, sir.

30
Id. at 33-34.
Decision 12 A.M. No. MTJ-23-017
[Formerly OCA IPI No. 19-3073-MTJ]

JUSTICE GUTIERREZ:

Show it before the tribunal.

ATTY.VALLEJO:

May ~e request, Your Honor, this picture introduced by private

complainant, be marked as our evidence, Exhibit B? ....

JUSTICE GUTIERREZ:

Is this the respondent? (Justice Gutierrez is pointing to a man

holding an envelope)

ATTY. VALLEJO:

Yes, Your Honor. The witness was able to identify the respondent
in the picture, Your Honor.

JUSTICE GUTIERREZ:

Make it of record that the picture shows that.

ATTY. VALLEJO:

May I be allowed, Your Honor, to show to the counsel for

respondent?

JUSTICE GUTIERREZ:

All right, paiiero. Show this picture and ask him who this person is,
and what was he doing[.] 31

On cross-examination, Judge Bacale was shown a picture of himself

counting the money handed to him by Magaoay inside a brown envelope and
asked what he was doing in the picture. He answered that he could rio longer
recall and maintained that he only received the envelope but did not count the
money inside. His wife Rornilda, however, testified to the contrary, viz.:

31
Id. at 44-46.
Decision 13 A.M. No. MTJ-23-017
[Formerly OCA IPI No. 19-3073-MTJ]

JUSTICE GRULLA:

The second meeting, there was an envelope given to your husband

Judge Bacale, which contain PHP 100,000.00. Did you tell your husband that
he will be receiving that amount? That envelope?

ROMILDA:

Yes, Your Honor.

JUSTICE GRULLA:

So he knew about the envelope containing the money?

ROMILDA:

Yes, your Honor. 32

Too, Judge Bacale himself testified on his direct participation in the

transaction, viz.:

JUSTICE GUTIERREZ:

Mr. Witness, what exactly was this instruction of your wife? Can you
clarify?

JUDGE BACALE:

She told me, Your Honor, to meet a certain person in a hotel

somewhere in Quezon City and she told me that her companion somewhere
in the City of Manila told her that the city needs a supply of medicines. And
then, she told me that her friend in the City of Manila told her to meet this
person. So, she instructed me to meet the complainant.

JUSITCE GUTIERREZ:

Did she tell you the purpose of your meeting \\-ith the complainant?
Why will you meet the complainant according to your wife?

32 TSN, Romilda Amago Bacale, October 27, 2023, p. 59.

Decision 14 A.M. No. MTJ-23-017
[Formerly OCA IPI No. 19-3073-MTJ]

JUDGE BACALE:

She told me to inform the complainant that the City of Manila needs
a [supply] of medicines and there are papers or documents to be prepared.

JUSTICE GUTIERREZ:

She told you that the hospitals in the City of Manila need medicines?

JUDGE BACALE:

Yes, Your Honor.

JUSTICE GUTIERREZ:

And then what is your role on that? Are you aware that these hospitals
need medicine?

JUDGE BACALE:

Because she told me, Your Honor, that the person whom I am going
to meet is a supplier of medicines.

JUSTICE GUTIERREZ:

What is your participation? What is the relevancy of your presence

during that meeting? Will you tell the Court? Why should you be there? You
are a judge.

JUDGE BACALE:

Yes, Your Honor. Because she instructed me, Your Honor, and also
in order to help her because she rescued me from typhoon "Yolanda."33

JUSTICE PONFERRADA:

During this time that you met the complainant upon instruction of
your wife, was that the time that you were still separated?

33
TSN, Judge Ateneones Bacale, October 18, 2023, pp. 46-48.
Decision 15 A.M. No. MTJ-23-017
[Formerly OCA IPI No. 19-3073-MTJ]

JUDGE BACALE:

No, Your Honor. Not anymore.

JUSTICE PONFERRADA:

You reconciled already?

JUDGE BACALE:

Yes, Your Honor. 34

JUSTICE PONFERRADA:

And you, a judge, [has] been made. an errand boy by a teacher, is that
correct?

JUDGE BACALE:

Because she is my wife, Your Honor.

JUSTICE PONFERRADA:

But you did not, as a judge, tell your wife that "I am a judge. I must
appear as I have learned from my duties and I must appear proper. It would
not be proper for me to be engaged in this kind of transaction." Did you not
advise your wife? I am sure you know that. You know the Code of Conduct
for Judges?

JUDGE BACALE:

Yes, Your Honor. I did not anymore, Your Honor, because in order to
pay back for her efforts in rescuing me, tinulungan ko na Zang.

JUSTICE PONFERRADA:

Effort in what?

34
Id. at 61-62.
Decision 16. A.M. No. MTJ-23-017
[Formerly OCA IPI No. 19-3073-MTJ]

JUDGE BACALE:

She rescued me when typhoon "Yolanda" struck. I had nothing, Your

Honor. I had nowhere to go. Ang bahay ko ay raised to the ground. Nothing,
only clothing and books. Everything. Just to show gratitude, Your Honor, I
have to help her.

JUSTICE PONFERRADA:

Gratitude to your wife?

JUDGE BACALE:

Yes, Your Honor.

JUSTICE PONFERRADA:

So, even when you knew that it was wrong, because of your gratitude,
you complied with the instructions of your wife, correct?

JUDGE BACALE:

That's right, Your Honor.

JUSTICE PONFERRADA:

In other words, you took the risk because of your gratitude.

.TTJDGE BACALE:

Yes, Your Honor.

JUSTICE PONFERRADA:

And you are ready to accept the consequences, correct?

JUDGE BACALE:

Yes, Your Honor. 35

35
Id. at 64-67.
Decision 17 A.M. No. MTJ-23-017
[Formerly OCA IPI No. 19-3073-MTJ]

Judge Bacale himself admitted during the hearing that he knew that his
wife was engaged in an illegal manipulation of the bidding process for medical
supplies to the hospitals in the City of Manila. Despite its illegality, he readily
participated in it by acting as his wife's "bag man" and received from
Magaoay his bidding documents and "lock-in money" in the amount of PHP
100,000.00. He even affirmed that his actions were in violation of the Code
of Judicial Conduct.

Too, the JIB gave credence to Magaoay's testimony that Romilda and
Dela Cruz would not have been able to dupe him in the illegal transaction
were it not for Judge Bacale's direct participation. Magaoay trusted him
because of his position as a judge, a person in authority he could rely on. His
judgeship gave Magaoay the impression that indeed, the project would push
through because he and his wife would be the ones to facilitate it.

Judges are enjoined to strictly comply with the New Code of Judicial
Conduct. Integrity is essential not only to the proper discharge of the judicial
office but also to the personal demeanor of juqges. Propriety and the
appearance of propriety, on the other hand, are essential to the performance
of all the activities of a judge. 36 Sections 1 and 2 of Canon 2 and Sections 1
and 2 of Canon 4 provide:

CANON 2 - Integrity

SECTION 1. Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above
reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable
·observer.

SECTION 2. The behavior and conduct ofjudges must ieaffirm the people; s
faith in the integrity of the judiciary. Justice must not merely be done but
must also be seen to be done.

CANON 4 - Propriety

Section 1. Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appeara..tJ.ce of impropriety

in all of their activities. • •

Section 2. A~. a subject of constant public scrutiny~ judges must accept

personal restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary

36 Office of the Court Administrator v. Reyes, A.M. No. RTJ-20-2579, October 10, 2023 [Per Curiam, En
Banc].
Decision 18 A.M. No. MTJ-23-017
[Formerly OCA IPI No. 19-3073-MTJJ

citizen and should do so freely and willingly. In particular, judges must

conduct themselves in a way that is consistent with the dignity of the judicial
office.

The Court has repeatedly admonished judges to adhere to the highest

tenets of judicial conduct. They must be the embodiments of integrity and
propriety. The exacting standards of conduct demanded from judges are
designed to promote public confidence in the judiciary because the people's
confidence in the judicial system is founded not only in the magnitude of legal
knowledge and the diligence of the members of the bench, but also on the
highest standard of integrity and moral uprightness they are expected to
possess. When judges become the transgressor of ~ny law which they are
sworn to apply, they place their office in disrepute, encourage disrespect for
the law, and impair public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the
judiciary itself. It is therefore paramount that the personal behavior ofjudges,
both in the performance of. their duties and daily life, be free from any
appearance of impropriety as to be beyond reproach. 37

It is not enough that judges possess competence in the law. They must
also have moral integrity, as magistrates are measured not only by their
official acts but also by their private morals, to the extent that these are
externalized.

In Tobias v. Limsiaco, Jr., 38 the Court defined gross misconduct in this

wise:

The aforementioned acts of respondent constitute gross misconduct.

"Misconduct" means a transgression of some establish,ed and definite rule of
action, willful in character, improper or wrong behavior. "Gross" has been
defined as "011t of all measure, beyond allowance; flagrant; shameful; such
conduct as is not to be excused. "39

In Gacad v. Clapis, Jr., 40 the Court further emphasized that gross

misconduct exists if the judicial act complained of is inspired by corrupt
motive or a persistent disregard of well-known rules, viz.:

Misconduct means intentional WTongdoing or deliberate violation of a

rule oflaw or standard of behavior in connection with one's performance of
official functions and duties. For grave or gross misconduct to exist, the
judicial act complained of should be corrupt or inspired by the intention to

37 Tan v. Rosete, 481 Phil. 189, 202 (2004), [Per J. Puno, Second Division).
38
655 Phil. I, 10.:...1 I (201 I) [Per J. Peralta, Second Division].
39
Id. at 10-11.
40
691 Phil. 126, 136 (2012)[Per Curiam, En Banc].
Decision 19 A.M. No. MTJ-23-017
[Formerly OCA IPI No. 19-3073-MTJ]

violate the law, or a persistent disregard of well-known rules. The misconduct

must imply wrongful intention and not a mere error of judgment.41

Here, Judge Bacale has shown a stubborn disregard of the rules which
casts doubt on his integrity and sense of propriety as shown by the totality of
the circumstances relating to his participation in his wife's illegal transactions.
He did not inform his wife that as a judge, it would not be proper for him to
assist her in her transaction with Magaoay. He should have known that family
concerns are only secondary to preserving the.integrity of the judiciary.42

Instead, Judge Bacale met with and even assured Magaoay that he could
"facilitate" the award of contract~ to the latter by the City of Manila for the
supply of medicines worth PHP 50,000,000.00 without the need to undergo
the procurement process. Indeed, his actions tainted the image of the judiciary.
For knowingly participating in the act of manipulating the process of public
bidding in violation of Sections 356 and 366 of Republic Act No. 7160, 43 in
relation to Section 3(e) of Repu9lic Act No. 3019,44 the Court finds Judge
Bacale guilty of gross misconduct under the New Code of Judicial Conduct.

Rule 140, Section 13 of the Rules of Court classifies gross misconduct

as a serious charge, thus:

SECTION 14. Serious Charges.-, Serious charges include:

(a) Gross misconduct constituting violations of the Code of Judicial

Conduct or ofthe Code of Conduct for Court Personnel;

41
Id. at 136.
42
See Vidal v. Dojillo, 501 Phil. 555, (2005) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, Second Division].
43 Local Government Code of 1991, approved on October 10,1991. SECTION 356. General Rule in
Procurement or Disposal. - Except as otherwise provided herein, acquisition of supplies by local
government units shall be through competitive public bidding. Supplies which have become
unserviceable or no longer needed shall be sold, whenever applicable, at public auction, subject to
applicable rules and regulations.
SECTION 366. Procurement without Public Bidding. - Procurement of supplies may be made without
the benefit of public bidding under any of the following modes:
(a) Personal canvass ofresponsible merchants;
(b) Emergency purchase;
(c) Negotiated purchase;
(d) Direct purchase from manufacturers or exclusive distributors; and
(e) Purchase from other government entities.
See Montejo v. People, 905 Phil. 1085, 1104-1105 (2021) [Per J. Inting, Third Division].
44 Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, approved on August 17, 1960. For a successful prosecution under
Section 3 (e) of RA 3019, the following elements must concur, to wit:
1. The offender must be a public officer;
2. The act was done in the discharge of the public officer's official, administrative, or judicial functions;
3. The act was done through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence; and
4. The public officer caused any undue injury to any party, including the government, or gave any private
party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference.
See Montejo v. People, 905 Phil. 1085, 1105 (2021) [Per J. Inting, Third Division].
Decision 20 A.M. No. MTJ-23-017
[Formerly OCA IPI No. 19-3073-MTJ]

Rule 140, Section 17 of the same rules carries the sanctions to be

imposed on a respondent found guilty of a serious charge, to wit:

SECTION 17. Sanctions. -

(1) If the respondent is guilty of a serious charge, any of the

following sanctions may be imposed:

(a) Dismissal from the service, forfeiture ofall or part ofthe

benefits as the Supreme Court may determine, and
disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to
any public office, including government-owned or -
controlled corporations. Provided, however, that the
forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued
leave credits;

(b) Suspension from office without salary and other benefits

for more than six (6) but not exceeding one (1) year; or

(c) A fine of more than Pl00,000.00 but not exceeding

P200,000.00. (Emphasis supplied.)

For his gross misconduct affecting his fitness and worthiness of the
honor and integrity attached to his office, Judge Bacale should suffer the
supreme penalty of dismissal from. the service.

As for the recom.m.endation of the JIB for the simultaneous disbarment

of Judge Bacale, we refer to our ruling in Office ofthe Court Administrator v.
Judge Eliza B. Yu. 45 The Court dismissed Judge Eliza B. Yu from the service
for gross insubordination, gross misconduct, gross ignorance of the law, grave
abuse of authority, oppression, and conduct unbecoming of a judicial official.
While the offenses charged against her were also considered as violations of
the Lawyer's Oath, the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the Canons
of Professional Ethics, it was shown that at that point in time, she has not been.
afforded yet an opportunity to show cause why she should not be disbarred or
otherwise disciplined as a member of the Bar. Thus, apart from dismissing
Judge Yu from the service, the Court directed her, among others, to show
cause in writing why she should not be disbarred for her unlawful acts.46 As
it was, it was only after she submitted her written explanation that the Court
disbarred her per its Res.olution dated March 14, 2017.

45
Office ofthe Court Administrator v. Yu, 800 Phil. 307 (2016) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
46
/d.at419-421.
Decision 21 A.M. No. MTJ-23-017
[Formerly OCA IPI No. 19-3073-MTJ]

In the case of Judge Bacale, he too has not been given yet an
opportunity to show cause why he should not be disbarred or otherwise
disciplined as a member of the Bar, pursuant to A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC. 47
Verily, here and now, the Court orders him to show cause why his name
should not be stricken off from the Roll of Attorneys.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court finds respondent JUDGE

ATENEONES S. BACALE GUILTY of gross misconduct for which he is
DISMISSED from the service, with forfeiture of all the benefits due him,
except accrued leave benefits, if any, with prejudice to re-employment in any
branch of the government, including government-owned or -controlled
corporations.

Respondent JUDGE ATENEONES S. BACALE is also directed to

SHOW CAUSE in writing within 10 days from notice why he should not be
disbarred for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and
Accountability as outlined herein.

Let a copy of this Decision t be entered into Judge Bacale's record as

a member of the bar and notice of the same be served on the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines and on the Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to
all courts in the country.

SO ORDERED.

(on official leave)

ALFREDO BENJAMIN S. CAGUIOA
Senior Associate Justice Associate Justice

47 Re: Automatic Conversion of Some Administrative Cases against Justices of the Court of Appeals and
the Sandiganbayan; Judges of Regular and Special Courts; and Court Officials Who are Lawyers as
Disciplinary Proceedings Against them Both as Such Officials and as Members of the Philippine Bar,
dated September 17, 2002 and took effect on October 1, 2002.
• . ··!

Decision 22 A.M. No. MTJ-23-017

[Formerly OCA IPI No. 19-3073-MTJ]

~,L.HERNANDO
Associate Justice

HEN

2: =~
SAMUEL:,c;AE
Associate Justice
.

RIC .ROSARIO JHOSE~OPEZ

Associate Justice

~
"
J ASP. RQUEZ
ssociate Justice ~ssociate Justice

~O,J. ' FILOMENA D. SINGH

Associate Justice Associate Justice