SC fines stenographer for secretly filming women

A court interpreter was found guilty by the Supreme Court (SC) of gross immorality for taking videos of the legs, buttocks, and other sensitive parts of the bodies of female court personnel and female lawyers inside the courtroom or staffroom without their consent.

In a 12-page decision penned by Associate Justice Antonio Kho, Jr. dated 3 June 2026, the SC En Banc found Jan Paul Lugtu, Court Interpreter III of Branch 12 of the Family Court in Olongapo City, guilty of gross immorality and imposed a fine of ₱100,000 for his misconduct.

The high bench emphasized that all court personnel, from the presiding judge to the lowest-ranking employee, bear a heavy responsibility to uphold the highest standards of moral integrity, honesty, and decorum.

Presiding Judge Gemma Theresa B. Hilario-Logronio filed the administrative case alleged that Lugtu was caught using a concealed video-recording device disguised as a black pen to discreetly take photos and videos of the legs, underwear, and sensitive body parts of female court staff, lawyers, and prosecutors within the courtroom and staff room.

On 28 November 2022, after continuous monitoring, Judge Hilario-Logronio and other court personnel caught Lugtu in flagrante delicto pointing his pen camera beneath the skirt of the Branch Clerk of Court.

Lugtu when confronted in open court, explicitly confessed that he used the device "para manilip" (to peek/voyeur) and stored the videos on his personal laptop.

With this, Judge Hilario-Logronio requested the staff to inspect it and found a small memory card/storage inside, which contained recordings of the legs and behind of a lawyer.

Lugtu was cited for direct contempt, served a 72-hour imprisonment, and subsequently tendered his resignation.

The Judicial Integrity Board (JIB) processed the administrative complaint despite his resignation and found Lugtu administratively liable for gross immorality and recommended that he be meted with a fine of ₱100,000.

The SC in adopting the recommendation of the JIB, found Lugtu guilty of gross immorality, citing the 2025 Code of Conduct and Accountability for Court Officials and Personnel (2025 CCACOP), gross immorality is classified as a serious offense.

It cited Canon II of the 2025 CCACOP, which provides that "Court officials and personnel must not only be free from any impropriety, but must also be perceived to be so, with respect to their professional and personal conduct.

The SC reiterated that immoral acts are those which violate the basic norms of decency, morality, and decorum abhorred and condemned by the society. Here, it found that Lugtu's act of taking photos of his co-employees' legs and underwear, even while in performance of work, is nothing but grossly immoral and indecorous.

It reaffirmed that a respondent's supervening resignation during the pendency of administrative proceedings does not divest the Court of its jurisdiction or preclude the continuation of the case most especially that the complaint was filed during the incumbency of the Lugtu.