Judges who frequent comedy bars, shout at litigants and court personnel, walk out during hearings, and hurl invectives when in a bad mood are not fit to become members of the judiciary.

These were the reasons the Supreme Court (SC) ordered the dismissal of metropolitan trial court (MeTC) Judge Julia A. Reyes of Branch 69 in Pasig City. Her dismissal carries with it the forfeiture of all her benefits like retirement pay.

But Judge Reyes had left the Philippines in 2004 and has not returned since then.

According to the SC, Reyes had waived her right to answer the five administrative complaints filed against her when she left the country in 2004 without seeking the High Court’s permission or without filing any leave of absence.

The SC said that Reyes was issued an authority to travel to the United States for the period from November 16 to 30, 2004, but appeared to have left only in December 2004.

Based on the certification issued by the Bureau of Immigration, the only entry in its database related to the travel of Reyes was her departure to an unknown destination through Korean Air Flight No. KE622 on Dec. 28, 2004. Her whereabouts have remained unknown.

“The records show that respondent Judge has abandoned her office of presiding judge. She did probably because she felt guilty and could not find any justification for her actions so she fled,” the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) said in its recommendation to dismiss her.

“If judges were allowed to roam unrestricted beyond the boundaries within which they are required by law to exercise the duties of their office, then the law becomes meaningless,” the OCA said.

The complaints against Reyes were filed by Assistant City Prosecutor Romana Reyes for grave abuse of authority and/or grave misconduct; and branch clerk of court Timoteo Migriño for gross ignorance of the law, oppression, abuse of authority and illegal arrest and detention. Andree Lagdameo and Florencio Sebastian, who were parties in two separate cases, also charged Reyes with grave misconduct, gross ignorance of the law, incompetence and inefficiency.

Court personnel Armi Flordeliza, Juliet Villar, and Ma. Concepcion Lucero also accused Reyes of residing in her chambers, borrowing money from staff, instructing the stenographer to collect a minimum  amount for ex-parte cases, frequently bringing some of her staff to her nighttime gimmick, unethical conduct, conduct unbecoming of a lady judge, unfriendliness to litigants, anti-public service, inability to control emotions during hearing, uttering invectives in front of staff and lawyers, conducting staff meeting in an unsightly attire, and gross inefficiency/laziness.

“The Court cannot shrug off her failure to exercise that degree of care and temperance required of a judge in the correct and prompt administration of justice, more so in these cases where her exercise  of the power of contempt resulted in the detention and deprivation of liberty of Migriño, Andree, Sebastia and Alicia and endangered the freedom of the other complainants,” the SC said.

“Those who don the judicial robe must observe judicial decorum which requires the magistrates to be at all times temperate in their language, refraining from inflammatory or excessive rhetoric to the language of vilification,” it said.

“Her inability to control her emotions, her walking out of the courtroom during hearings, and her shouting invectives at her staff and lawyers indicate her unfitness to sit on the bench. They betray her failure to exercise judicial temperaments at all times, and maintain composure and equanimity,” it added.