Facts: A proceeding for the violation of BP 22 was filed by the complainant with the

Municipal Trial Court of Calamba, Laguna, presided by herein respondent.

Complainant Lualhati M. Liwanag alleges that on several occasions,
respondent Judge Paterno Lustre required of her sexual favors in return for
the processing of complainants case filed with the respondent Judge. In one
of the several occasions that respondent Judge allegedly had molested the
complainant, respondent allegedly caressed complainants breast and
required her to perform fellatio for him; and, in one instance, had taken her
to Riverview Resort in Calamba, Laguna and, as complainant said, He
ordered me to perform "fellatio" on him and I obeyed. There was blood that
oozed from his penis. I also saw black rashes on his body, especially on his
legs. Before we left, he told me to see him again on July 10 in his office.
Succeeding sexual favors were requested by the Respondent and, when
complainant refuses to do so, respondent would allegedly delay the trial for
her case.
Issue: Whether or not Respondent has committed impropriety in the performance of
his duties.
Held: Yes. Respondent has failed to live up to the high standard of conduct required
of members of the bench. He grossly violated his duty to uphold the integrity
of the judiciary and to avoid impropriety not only in his public but in his
private life as well; all to the grave prejudice of the administration of justice.
Respondent does not deny that he is the one appearing with complainant in
the photographs submitted as evidence by the Complainant. He conveniently
testified that somebody else had posed for the photograph, but this is
obviously an afterthought. Respondent made this assertion almost a year
after complainant filed her complaint. He could have done it as early as
October 1995 in his comment to complainants charges. If the pictures were
not taken at Riverview, where were they taken and why was respondent with
complainant at that time? If, indeed, there was a legitimate reason for
complainant and respondent to be seen together at the time and place
depicted in the photographs, respondent would have wasted no time
explaining where they were taken and under what circumstances, in order to
extricate himself from his present predicament. This, he failed to do. The
reason for this, we believe, is that he could not simply offer any plausible
explanation why he was seen with complainant coming out of what is
apparently a private room. The Court cannot countenance any act or
omission, on the part of the officials at every level in the administration of
justice, which erodes rather than enhances the publics faith and trust in the
judiciary. Respondents disgraceful conduct surely merits sanctions even if he
has already retired as of November 1, 1998. For the serious misconduct of
respondent, the penalty provided for in Rule 140, Section 10, of the Rules of
Court, by way of fine in the maximum amount should be imposed.