ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-2185-RTJ.� April 6, 2005]
ANONYMOUS vs. GEDORIO
SECOND DIVISION
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated APR 6 2005.
A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-2185-RTJ (Anonymous vs. Judge Francisco C. Gedorio, Jr., RTC, Br. 12, Ormoc City.)
Acting on the Memorandum of the Office of the Court of Administrator (OCA) dated February 8, 2005, to wit:
This pertains to the 1st Indorsement dated 27 February 2004 of the Office of the Chief Justice referring to the undersigned for appropriate action an anonymous letter assailing the Order dated 16 February 2004 of Judge Francisco C. Gedorio, Jr., RTC, Branch 12, Ormoc City, Leyte, in Criminal Case No. 6341-0 (People v. Akmad Lamama).
According to the letter-writer, he was one of the police officers who apprehended Akmad Lamama on 18 June 2002 for possession of 306.4 grains of shabu. Accordingly, Lumama was charged with violation of RA 6425, as amended, before the RTC, Branch 35, Ormoc City, Leyte. On 16 February 2004, Lumama was released from jail by virtue of a written Order of Judge Gedorio, Jr. The letter-writer claimed that Judge Gedorio, Jr. has no authority to order the release of the accused considering that he is not the presiding judge of RTC, Branch 35, Ormoc City.
On 10 March 2004, this Office referred the anonymous letter to Judge Gedorio, Jr. for comment. In his Manifestation dated 26 March 2004, Judge Gedorio, Jr. explained that the complaint stemmed from his Order dated 16 February 2004 resolving the accused's Urgent Motion for Early Resolution of the Petition for Bail. The Petition for Bail was filed on 10 March 2003 before Branch 35. Judge Eric F. Menchavez, then Acting Presiding Judge of that court conducted several hearings on the petition, however, he was not able to resolve the same until Judge Apolinario M. Buaya was appointed Presiding Judge of Branch 35 on 23 December 2003. Considering that Judge Buaya was still undergoing the immersion program, he referred the Motion to Judge Gedorio, Jr. for appropriate action. As Executive Judge of RTC, Ormoc City, Leyte and Pairing Judge of RTC, Branch 35, Ormoc City, Judge Gedorio, Jr. resolved the Petition for Bail.
There is no basis to hold Judge Francisco C. Gedorio, Jr., RTC, Branch 12, Ormoc City, Leyte, administratively liable.
Administrative Order No. 74-2002 issued on 30 May 2002 by then Acting Chief Justice Josue N. Bellosillo designating Judge Eric C. Menchavez of RTC, Branch 17, Palompon, Leyte as Acting Presiding Judge of RTC, Branch 36, Ormoc City, Leyte, specifically stated that the designation shall be effective immediately and to continue until the appointment of a regular judge thereat or until further orders of the Court.
Thus, when Judge Apolinario M. Buaya was appointed Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 35, Ormoc City, Leyte on 23 December 2003, Judge Menchavez ceased acting on cases pending before that court.
On 09 February 2004, the accused filed an Urgent Motion to Resolve Petition for Bail. However, Judge Buaya could not yet act on the Motion as he was still undergoing the required immersion program. Under paragraph 4(e) of A.M. No. 99-7-07-SC (Resolution Prescribing Guidelines for Qualifying for Judicial Office), new and original appointees to the judiciary, although they have already taken their oath of office, cannot perform judicial functions, they may act only on administrative matters.
As the Executive Judge of RTC, Ormoc City and Pairing Judge of Branch 35, Judge Francisco C. Gedorio, Jr. acted in good faith on the Motion, and resolved the Petition for Bail on 16 February 2004. At that time, there was yet no clear policy on who should act on cases while the new judge undergoes the immersion program and the orientation seminar-workshop. It was only on 22 October 2004 in the case of Evelyn Ong v. Judge Maxwel S. Rosete, A.M. No. MTJ-04-1358 when the Court declared that : "Acting presiding judges are designated precisely to forestall a delay in the administration of justice. Under paragraph 4(E) of A.M. No. 99-7-07-SC, however, new and original appointees to the Judiciary can only perform judicial functions after undergoing the Orientation Seminar conducted by the Philippine Judicial Academy. While Administrative Order No. 84-99 states that respondent's designation as acting presiding judge shall continue until the appointment of the judge thereat or until further orders from this Court, it can be construed that the Administrative Order intended that respondent's designation shall be until Judge Panganiban assumes office, after her seminar, and not only until the date her appointment was signed. This interpretation not only meets the requirement of construction to harmonize two seemingly contradictory orders, it also answers the need for speedy dispensation of justice and decision of cases."
Moreover, the letter-writer failed to prove that Judge Gedorio, Jr. was actuated by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty or corruption in granting the accused's Petition for Bail.
WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, we respectfully recommend that this matter be considered CLOSED. [1] cralaw
The findings and recommendations of the OCA are well taken.
An anonymous complaint is always received with great caution, originating as it does from an unknown author. It is only where the complaint may be easily verified and may, without much difficulty, be substantiated and established by other competent evidence that its outright dismissal cannot be justified. [2] cralaw However, considering that such evidence must be competent and derived from direct knowledge, [3] cralaw that charges based on mere conjectures and suppositions cannot be given credence, [4] cralaw and that the complainant failed to substantiate the charges against Judge Gedorio, the instant complaint must forthwith be dismissed.
It must be stressed that while it is the Court's duty to investigate and determine the truth behind every matter in complaints against judges and other court personnel, it is also the duty of the Court to see to it that they are protected and exonerated from baseless administrative charges. The Court will not shirk from its responsibility of imposing discipline upon its magistrates, but neither will it hesitate to shield them from unfounded suits that serve to disrupt rather than promote the orderly administration of justice. [5] cralaw
The Court thus resolves to consider the instant administrative matter CLOSED AND TERMINATED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Rollo, pp. 1-2.
[2] cralaw Anonymous v. Geverola, A.M. No. P-97-1254, 18 September 1997, 279 SCRA 279.
[3] cralaw See Urgent Appeal/Petition for Immediate Suspension & Dismissal of Judge Emilio B. Legaspi, Regional Trial Court, Iloilo City, Br. 22, A.M. No. 01-1-15-RTC, 10 July 2003, 405 SCRA 514.
[4] cralaw Lambino v. De Vera, 341 Phil. 42 (1997).
[5] cralaw Cruz v. Iturralde, A.M. No. RTJ-03-1775, 30 April 2003, 402 SCRA 65.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
