In Re Complaint of Marcos Against Judge Ferdinand Marcos

In re complaint of Marcos against Judge Ferdinand Marcos (1996) Facts --‐ Mrs. Marcos was the wife of Judge Ferdinand Ferdinand Marcos. he and her children complained against her hus!and alleging that e"er since Mr. Mr. Marcos was appointed as a #udge of the $%& at &e!u' his famil had ne"er seentoo* hold of his chec*s' that the ha"e onl !een recei"ing recei"ing a minimal amount which was insu+cient for their education and for their sustenance --‐ Mrs. Marcos and her *ids praed that all the remuneration due Judge Marcos from the & !e directl released released to Mrs. Marcos at the school where she has !een ser"ing for , ears to pre"ent Mr. Mr. Marcos mistress from getting them --‐ Mr. Mr. Marcos sas that hes !een supporting complainant and was regularl gi"ing his wife mone. mone. /e also denies ha"ing a mistress --‐ 0eput &ourt dministrator recommends2 recommends2 complaint !e considered closed and terminated terminated as there was a letter-withdrawal letter-withdrawal su!mitted ! complainants o $eport of 0& not appro"ed ! the &ourt dministrator and the case remained suspended until &J 0a"ide reported to the court 3n 4anc on the incident he witnessed witness ed at the Fun $un --‐ Judge Marcos has a woman with him at the Fun $un' upon the &J 5uestioning Marcos' he admitted that he had !een li"ing with the woman and that he was separated from his wife --‐ &J referred the case to the & and suspended Judge Marcos o 0uring the hearing it was found out that Judge Marcos indeed ha"e another woman (!ills that were paid ! the Judge to an account unfamiliar to complainant' things that were !ought that she didnt remem!er remem!er seeing' a car was !ought and was registered registered in Judge Marcos and Madelane %acaldo etc) o Judge Marcos2 it was actuall his wife who had a lo"er' denies e"erthing else thrown at him Issue2 wn Judge Marcos is guilt of "iolating the &anons of Judicial &onduct. 7es. 7es. $atio2 --‐ Judge Marcos and Ms. %acaldo #ointl !ought a motor "ehicle -a %oota $e"o $e"o - and had it registered registered in their names as co-owners. %he o!tained insurance for the same "ehicle with them as #oint !ene8ciaries. %hese actions clearl indicate indicat e that the were the #oint owners of the %oota $e"o. --‐ $espondents posture that Mrs. Marcos is also guilt of immoralit does not e:cuse nor e"en mitigate his actions. It is respondents pri"ate action that is !eing in"estigated not his wifes. --‐ Jdge Marcos candidl and fran*l f ran*l admitted to the &hief Justice that he had !een li"ing with Ms. %acaldo for the last three ears as he was alread separated from his wife. 4ringing Ms. %acaldo to pu!lic functions was not in good taste --‐ considering that Judge Marcos was still "er much married e"en if he and his wife $otilla were alread li"ing separatel separate l.. /e had no right to ;aunt

Madelane %acaldo as if she was his wife. %his conduct is certainl un!ecoming of a #udge whose conduct must at all times !e !eond reproach. --‐ %he fact that complainant has lost interest in prosecuting the administrati"e case against herein respondent #udge will not necessaril warrant a dismissal thereof. nce charges ha"e !een 8led' the upreme &ourt ma not !e di"ested of its #urisdiction to in"estigate and ascertain the truth of the matter alleged in the complaint.

 Judge Marcos is dismissed