THE Supreme Court (SC) has stripped a judge of his title and license to practice law for orchestrating the assassination of a colleague.
The SC En Banc issued the order for the dismissal and disbarment of Oscar D. Tomarong, presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 28 in Liloy, Zamboanga del Norte. The High Court’s decision is the result of disciplinary proceedings connected to the murder of Judge Reymar L. Lacaya of RTC Branch 11 of Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte, the SC Public Information Office said on Tuesday, Dec. 23, 2025.
The big question
Why does the High Court enforce immediate dismissal and disbarment even while a criminal appeal is still pending?
Murder plot
The crime happened in 2019, when Tomarong and Lacaya were reassigned to each other’s court branches. Lacaya was killed shortly after the swap.
According to court documents, Lacaya was shot and killed in the afternoon following a hearing at Branch 28. Witnesses reported hearing gunshots as he walked to his car behind the court building, where his body was later discovered.
The connection to Tomarong was established through the testimony of Juliber Cabating, a public works employee who also worked as Tomarong’s errand aide.
Cabating testified that the judge instructed him to hire contract killers to eliminate Lacaya. The testimony revealed that Tomarong funneled P250,000 to the hitmen through Cabating to carry out the execution.
In his testimony, Cabating said Tomarong told him that he had reached his limit and could no longer tolerate the “excessive” situation, as he was fed up. The High Court’s decision only records this expressed frustration as the motive, without elaborating on any deeper professional or personal conflict between the two judges.
Standards of evidence
A key aspect of this ruling is the distinction between criminal and administrative law. Tomarong has been criminally convicted of the murder in 2024, but that conviction is currently on appeal.
However, the SC clarified that it does not need to wait for a final criminal conviction to impose administrative penalties. In disciplinary cases, the standard is “substantial evidence.” This means the court only needs enough evidence to reasonably establish that the judge committed the offense. Because the High Court found substantial evidence of the crime, it moved forward with the dismissal regardless of the pending appeal.
Moral turpitude and judicial duty
The SC classified the murder as a crime involving “moral turpitude.” In legal terms, this refers to conduct that is contrary to justice, honesty or good morals. The ruling emphasized that murder is one of the gravest violations of a judge’s duty to society.
The decision highlighted the irony and severity of a judge committing a crime against a peer, especially in a climate where judicial safety is already a concern.
“At a time when the rise in the attacks against judges has even necessitated the adoption of measures to protect judges, a judge committing the murder of a fellow judge must be punished swiftly and severely,” the ruling read.
Consequences for the accused
The penalties handed down effectively end Tomarong’s career in law and government. The High Court ordered his immediate dismissal from the service and the forfeiture of his retirement benefits. He was also disbarred, meaning he is struck from the roll of attorneys and permanently banned from practicing law. The ruling also includes a lifetime disqualification from reemployment in any government office.
The SC said that a lawyer who displays an “utter disregard for the sanctity of human life” is unfit to remain in the legal profession. The ruling serves as a reminder to all courts to promptly report convictions of court personnel to the Judicial Integrity Board. / JJL