ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 04-2008-RTJ.� January 19, 2005]

CHAVEZ vs. ARLES

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 19 2005 .

Adm. Matter OCA I.P.I. No. 04-2008-RTJ (Judge Rolando G. Chavez vs. Judge Henry D. Arles, RTC, Branch 61, Kabankalan City.)

For consideration is the Report dated 18 October 2004 submitted by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).

On May 5, 2004, Judge Rolando G. Chavez filed a verified complaint against Judge Henry D. Arles for Gross Ignorance of the Law, relative to Special Civil Action No. 1182 entitled "People of the Philippines and Edwin Rando, Jr. vs. Hon. Rolando G. Chavez, in his capacity as Presiding Judge, MTC, Kabankalan City, and Sgt. Dan Casampang, Private Reibert Prado and Private Joseph Padilla."

A case for slight physical injuries docketed as Criminal Case No. 069-2K3 was filed against certain members of the Philippine Army by a certain Edwin Rando, Jr. before the court of Judge Chavez, MTC, Kabankalan City, Negros Occidental. Judge Chavez dismissed the case on the ground of prescription and denied the motion for reconsideration. The orders of Judge Chavez were assailed in a petition for review under Rule 65. Judge Arles of RTC, Branch 61, and Kabankalan City held that Judge Chavez gravely abused his discretion and directed Judge Chavez to reinstate in his court docket the criminal case and to conduct further proceedings.

City Prosecutor Danilo Tabat filed a motion to reinstate the criminal case, but the same was denied by Judge Chavez allegedly due to the former's failure to include a proper notice of hearing. Subsequently, Prosecutor Tabat filed a motion to cite Judge Chavez in contempt for refusal to reinstate the criminal case. After the submission of necessary pleadings, Judge Arles ordered the reinstatement of the criminal case in accordance with his earlier order, and the making of a return to his compliance therewith within 10 days from date of reinstatement.

Judge Chavez thereafter filed the instant complaint, charging Judge Arles with gross ignorance of the law.

The OCA recommended the dismissal of the complaint for being judicial in nature. It found that the complaint seeks to assail the order of Judge Arles, which is clearly judicial and not a proper subject of an administrative matter. Complainant's recourse should not be through an administrative proceeding, but through a judicial remedy set forth in the Rules of Court.

Finding the recommendation to be in accord with the law and facts of the case on record, the same is APPROVED. The administrative complaint against Judge Henry D. Arles, RTC, Branch 61, Kabankalan City, is DISMISSED for being judicial in nature.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE