SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

A.M. No.75-6-DJ January 17, 1978

DANIEL B. GALANGI, Complainant, vs. GEORGE C. MACLI-ING, Respondent.

R E S O L U T I O N

AQUINO, J.:

This is an administrative case against a fiscal who became a Judge of the Court of First Instance.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

On December 13, 1974 Daniel B. Galangi, the vice-mayor of Kiangan Ifugao, lodged in the Department of Justice an administrative charge against George C. Macli-ing the provincial fiscal of Ifugao, for supposed ignorance of the law and grave abuse of authority.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

That charge was provoked by Fiscal Macli-ings filing in March 1974 of a contempt charge against Galangi in the Court of First Instance of Ifugao at the instance of the provincial board- and pursuant to section 580 of the Revised Administrative Code, chanrobles virtual law library

By reason of that contempt charge, Judge Francisco Men Abad ordered Galangi's arrest. He was confined in the municipal calaboose of Kiangan for ten days, or from March 22 to 31, 1974, just like a common scalawag.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Before that contempt incident occurred, Galangi had already been accused before Fiscal Macli-ing of falsification of a municipal resolution. The complaint was filed on June 30, 1973 by Mayor Julian Dulawan.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The preliminary investigation of that case dragged on for a long time. The Undersecretary of Justice in a letter dated May 13, 1975 granted Fiscal Macli-ing clearance and authority to conduct the pre investigation.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

That investigation culminated in the filing on June 11, 1975 but Fiscal Macli-ing in the Court of First Instance of Ifugao of an information for falsification against Galangi, as principal and his aunt, Councilor Paulina Bulahao as an accomplice.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

About a month after the filing of that information, or on July 29, 1975 Galangi filed against Fiscal Macli-ing a supplemental complaint wherein he assailed the fiscal's handling of the preliminary investigation. Macli-ing answered the supplemental complaint.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The administrative case was assigned to the city fiscal of Baguio for investigation. That official in a report dated January 13, 1976 recommended the dismissal of the administrative charge.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The Secretary of Justice, in his letter dated February 3, 1976, transmitting the records of the case to Presidential Executive Assistant Jacobo C. Clave, concurred in the city fiscals recommendation.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The President of the Philippines in a first indorsement to the Secretary of Justice dated April 18, 1977 dismissed the administrative case, Galangi was informed of the Presidential decision in the letter dated May 11, 1977 sent to him by the Chief State prosecutor. That should have terminated the maker once and for all.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

However, the case remained pending because in the meantime, or on January 23, 1976, respondent Macli-ing was appointed Judge of the Court of First Instance of Benguet. He took his oath on February 9, 1976.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

In view of that development, the assistant chief state prosecutor instead of awaiting the Presidential action the administrative case, indorsed on June 22, 1976 to the Judicial consultant the case against Judge Macli-ing This Court in its resolution of December 16, 1976 in turn referred the case to the Court of Appeals for investigation, report and recommendation. Justice Samuel F. Reyes in his report of May 30, 1977 recommended the exoneration of Judge-Macli-ing.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

After deliberating on the foregoing facts, we hold that there is no legal and factual basis for this Court to take disciplinary action against Judge Macli-ing We should not review the Presidential action exonerating him.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

This Court can discipline a Judge of the Court of First Instance if he is guilty of serious misconduct or inefficiency (Sec. 67, Judiciary Law).chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

The charge against respondent Macli-ing refers to his conduct' as a prosecutor. He was exonerated of that charge by no less than the Chief Magistrate of the land.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Inasmuch as no imputation has been made against him as a Judge of the Court of First Instance, there is no justification for this Court to take any disciplinary action against him.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

WHEREFORE. this case is considered closed and terminated.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

SO ORDERED.