FACTS: Maria Apiag was still in their early age and their second year of high school

days, they were engaged in a lovely affair which resulted in the pregnancy of the said
complainant, and then and there gave birth to a child, named Teresita Apiag, having
been born out of wedlock.

In order to save name and shame, the parents of both the respondent and the
complainant came to an agreement to allow the respondent, and the complainant to
get married in the name, but not to live together as a husband, and wife for being close
relatives, thereby forcing the respondent to appear in a marriage affair where all the
pertinent marriage papers were already prepared, and duly signed by somebody; that
after the said affair both respondent and the complainant immediately separated each
other without living together as a husband, and wife even for a day, nor having
established a conjugal home.

On November 10, 1993, Maria Apiag Cantero with her daughter Teresita A. Cantero
Sacurom and son Glicerio A. Cantero charged the respondent, Judge Esmeraldo G.
Cantero of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Pinamungajan-Aloquinsan, Cebu, with
gross misconduct for allegedly having committed bigamy and falsification of public
documents.

ISSUE: Whether the charge of Grave Misconduct is not applicable to him because
assuming that he committed the offense, he was not yet a member of the judiciary

RULING: YES. Gross misconduct not applicable. The misconduct imputed by the
complainants against the judge comprises the following: abandonment of his first wife
and children, failing to give support, marrying for the second time without having first
obtained a judicial declaration of nullity of his first marriage, and falsification of public
documents. Misconduct, as a ground for administrative action, has a specific meaning
in law.

Explanation: "'Misconduct in office has definite and well understood legal

meaning. By uniform legal definition, it is a misconduct such as affects his
performance of his duties as an officer and not such only as affects his
character as a private individual. In such cases, it has been said at all times, it is
necessary to separate the character of man from the character of an officer. . . . It
is settled that misconduct, misfeasance, or malfeasance that warrants removal
from office of an officer, must have direct relation to and be connected with the
performance of official duties

The acts imputed against respondent Judge Cantero clearly pertain to his personal life
and have no direct relation to his judicial function. Neither do these misdeeds directly
relate to the discharge of his official responsibilities. Therefore, said acts cannot be
deemed misconduct much less gross misconduct in office. For any of the
aforementioned acts of Judge Cantero" to warrant disciplinary action, the act of the
judge must have a direct relation to the performance of his official duties. It is
necessary to separate the character of the man from the character of the officer."

However, the absence of a finding of criminal liability on his part does not preclude this
Court from finding him administratively liable for his indiscretion, which would have
merited disciplinary action from this Court had death not intervened. In deciding this
case, the Court emphasizes that "the personal behavior of a judge, not only upon the
bench but also in his everyday life, should be above reproach and free from the
appearance of impropriety. He should maintain high ethical principles and sense of
propriety without which he cannot preserve the faith of the people in the judiciary, so
indispensable in an orderly society. For the judicial office circumscribes the personal
conduct of a judge and imposes a number of restrictions thereon, which he has to
observe faithfully as the price he has to pay for accepting and occupying an exalted
position in the administration of justice."

Explanation: Considering Judge Cantero untarnished 32 years in government service,

the Court is inclined to treat him with leniency.

Man is not perfect. At one time or another, he may commit a mistake. But we should
not look only at his sin. We should also consider the man's sincerity in his repentance,
his genuine effort at restitution and his eventual triumph in the reformation of his life.

Explanation: This respondent should not be judged solely and finally by what took
place some 46 years ago. He may have committed an indiscretion in the past. But
having repented for it, such youthful mistake should not forever haunt him and should
not totally destroy his career and render inutile his otherwise unblemished record.

For such conduct, this Court would have imposed a penalty. But in view of his
death prior to the promulgation of this Decision, dismissal of the case is now in
order.

Francis Bacon

Judges ought to be more learned than witty (full of clever humor), more reverend
(honorable, respected) than plausible (credible), and more advised than confident.
Above all things, integrity is their portion and proper virtue.

Explanation: The eminent Francis Bacon wrote the foregoing exhortation some 400
years ago. Today, it is still relevant and quotable. By the nature of their functions,
judges are revered as models of integrity, wisdom, decorum, competence and
propriety. Human as they are, however, magistrates do have their own weaknesses,
frailties, mistakes and even indiscretions. In the case before us, respondent Judge
Esmeraldo G. Cantero was charged administratively in the twilight of his government
service, as a result of a failed love affair that happened some 46 years ago.

After an otherwise unblemished record, he would have reached the compulsory

retirement age of 70 years on August 8, 1997 had death not intervened a few months
ago on September 26, 1996. Notwithstanding his death, this Court still resolved to rule
on this case, as it may affect his retirement benefits.

Judges ought to remember, that their office is jus dicere, and not jus dare; to
interpret law, and not to make law, or give law.