Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1998 > June 1998 Decisions > A.M. No. MTJ-98-1165 June 21, 1998 - EXEQUIEL P. DOMINGO v. LUIS ENRIQUEZ REYES, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[A.M. No. MTJ-98-1165. June 21, 1999.]

EXEQUIEL P. DOMINGO, Complainant, v. JUDGE LUIS ENRIQUEZ REYES and CLERK OF COURT ERLINDA CABRERA, MTC, GUIGUINTO, BULACAN, Respondents.


R E S O L U T I O N


QUISUMBING, J.:


On December 11, 1996, Exequiel P. Domingo filed a complaint against respondent Judge Luis Enriquez Reyes, presiding judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Guiguinto, Bulacan, for grave abuse of discretion, misconduct, gross ignorance of the law and acts unbecoming a judge. Complainant also filed a complaint against Clerk of Court Erlinda Cabrera, of the same court, for grave misconduct, conduct unbecoming a court employee, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

It appears that on September 4, 1996, criminal complaints were filed against complainant and a certain Engr. Benjamin Biascan for robbery with slight physical injuries (Criminal Case No. 5528) and malicious mischief (Criminal Case Nos. 5529 and 5530). Respondent judge conducted a preliminary investigation of the robbery with physical injuries charge and found no prima facie case therefor.

Instead, he found that the "larceny of the rings" alleged in the complaint was not the primary motivation for the violence inflicted upon the private complainants in that case but was a mere afterthought. He thereafter ordered the Guiguinto police to amend the robbery charge to one for theft and to file a separate complaint for physical injuries. Respondent judge took cognizance of these cases (Criminal Case Nos. 5573 and 5574) and issued warrants for the arrest of complainant.

Complainant contends that respondent is not justified in assuming jurisdiction over those cases, as the allegations in the complaint show that the case was beyond his jurisdiction. He further claims that respondent judge should have refrained from handling the preliminary investigation of those cases because, allegedly, the certificates to file action relative to those cases were issued anomalously. Complainant points out that there was no court order for the parties to go to the barangay office for conciliation, nor was there an order for the barangay captain to summon the parties to a conciliation meeting.

Complainant asserts that respondent judge’s failure to follow the proper procedure carries with it the presumption that he (respondent) had an ulterior motive therefor.cralawnad

Complainant also claims that the filing of cases against him was made only upon the inducement of respondent clerk of court, Barangay Captain Jose Hilario of Sta. Rita Guiguinto, Bulacan, and Lucita Nagal, president of the Masagana Homes Homeowners’ Association, also in Guiguinto, Bulacan.

Respondent judge admits having ordered the amendment of the complaint for robbery and physical injuries. However, he claims that he believed this to be the just and proper action to take. He points out that Rule 112 of the Rules of Court is silent as regards situations where complaints for offenses cognizable by the Regional Trial Court bear out evidence for offenses cognizable by the Municipal Trial Court instead. Respondent judge says that in such instances, he treats the cases as if they were originally filed in the MTC.

Respondent judge avers that the filing of this complaint against him was only meant to harass him and to force him to inhibit himself from hearing the case, which he eventually did.chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

Respondent judge admitted having overlooked the case of Balagapo v. Duquilla 1 wherein we held that it is a ministerial duty on the part of the investigating judge to transmit the resolution of his preliminary investigation to the Provincial Prosecutor, 2 regardless of his belief on the matter.

While the respondent judge’s act was admittedly technically improper, he nevertheless points to human imperfection for his oversight and begs the Court’s understanding and compassion.

For her part, respondent clerk of court denies having committed any form of misconduct as alleged by complainant. She asserts that she had nothing to do with the criminal cases filed against complainant and denies any friendship with private complainants therein. She says that the complaint filed against her is totally unwarranted and malicious and meant solely to harass her.

In a resolution dated July 7, 1997, we referred this matter to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation, report and recommendation.

In its report dated April 15, 1998, the OCA found that, indeed, respondent judge erred in ordering the amendment of the complaint filed against complainant and taking cognizance of the cases. He should have followed the procedure laid down in Section 5, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, which provides:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

SECTION 5. Duty of Investigating Judge. — Within ten (10) days after the conclusion of the preliminary investigation, the investigating judge shall transmit to the provincial or city fiscal, for appropriate action, the resolution of the case, stating briefly the findings of facts and the law supporting his action, together with the entire records of the case, which shall include: (a) the warrant, if the arrest is by virtue of a warrant; (b) the affidavits and other supporting evidence of the parties; (c) the undertaking or bail of the accused; (d) the order of release of the accused and cancellation of his bail bond, if the resolution is for the dismissal of the complaint.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary:red

x       x       x


This procedure must be followed regardless of the belief or opinion of the investigating judge concerning the case, as we ruled in Balagapo.

However, the OCA observed that there is no malice or intent to cause injury on the part of respondent judge. His error is simply attributable to human frailty which, while constituting ignorance of the law, is not so gross as to warrant respondent judge’s dismissal. Neither does it amount to grave abuse of discretion, misconduct, or act unbecoming a judge. Moreover, respondent judge’s repentant attitude is a factor that mitigates his administrative liability. The OCA pointed out further that this is the first time that respondent judge became the subject of a complaint, a manifestation of his good standing as a judge.

The OCA recommended that respondent judge be reprimanded.

As for the complaint against respondent clerk of court, the OCA recommended its dismissal on account of complainant’s failure to substantiate his allegations. In a resolution dated October 7, 1998, we dismissed the complaint against respondent clerk of court for lack of merit.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

We agree with the findings of the OCA as regards the act imputed against respondent judge. In Balagapo v. Duquilla, we ruled that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

When a Municipal Judge conducts preliminary investigation, he performs a non-judicial function, as an exception to his usual duties. The assignment of such executive function to the Municipal Judge under Rule 112 of the Rules of Court is dictated by necessity and practical considerations. Consequently, the findings of an investigating Judge are subject to review by the Provincial Fiscal whose findings in turn may also be reviewed by the Secretary of Justice in appropriate cases. Hence, an investigating judge, after conducting a preliminary investigation, shall perform his ministerial duty which is to transmit within ten (10) days after the conclusion thereof the resolution of the case together with the entire records to the Provincial Prosecutor, regardless of his belief or opinion that the crime committed, after conducting the preliminary investigation, falls within the original jurisdiction of his court. 3

The investigating judge is left with no choice but to perform his ministerial duty under Section 5, Rule 112.

Judges are expected to keep abreast of developments in law and jurisprudence. However, we recognize that errors in the application of procedural rules are possible, as had happened in this case, without malicious intent on the part of the judge and without causing any harm to any litigant.

We do not countenance respondent judge’s failure to inform himself of recent jurisprudential rules. His error, while we recognize it to be an honest one and committed for the purpose of achieving the ends of justice, must never happen again.

WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Luis Enriquez Reyes, Municipal Trial Court, Guiguinto, Bulacan, is hereby REPRIMANDED for ignorance of the law and warned that commission of the same offense will be dealt with more severely.

SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Bellosillo, Mendoza and Buena, JJ., concur.

Puno, J., took no part; on official leave.

Endnotes:



1. 238 SCRA 645 (1994).

2. RULES OF COURT, Section 5, Rule 112.

3. Citing People v. Gorospe, 53 Phil. 960 (1928); De Guzman v. Escalona, 97 SCRA 619 (1980); Toledo v. Sta. Romana, 104 SCRA 444 (1981).




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





June-1998 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 90419 June 1, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMANO VIDAL ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124491 June 1, 1998 - ROQUE VICARIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122107 June 2, 1998 - CMP FEDERAL SECURITY AGENCY v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119359 June 8, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CELESTINO D. PAYOT

  • G.R. No. 128899 June 8, 1998 - AMERICAN EXPRESS INTERNATIONAL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 121462-63 June 9, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CIPRIANO DE VERA

  • G.R. No. 127815 June 9, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. STEPHEN SANTILLANA

  • A.C. No. 4411 June 10, 1998 - JAIME CURIMATMAT v. FELIPE GOJAR

  • A.C. - CBD No. 471 June 10, 1998 - LT. LAMBERTO P. VILLAFLOR v. ALVIN T. SARITA

  • G.R. No. 115794 June 10, 1998 - ANASTACIO MANANGAN v. ANGEL DELOS REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 122909-12 June 10, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTOR REÑOLA

  • G.R. No. 123417 June 10, 1998 - JAIME MORTA, SR. v. JAIME OCCIDENTAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126143 June 10, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFONSO BADON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128181 June 10, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO RADA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131692 June 10, 1998 - FELIPE YULIENCO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118985 June 14, 1998 - COCA COLA BOTTLERS v. JOSE S. ROQUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121739 June 14, 1998 - PNB v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 121930 June 14, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LOREDO REAL

  • G.R. No. 137172 June 15, 1998 - UCPB GENERAL INSURANCE CO. v. MASAGANA TELAMART

  • G.R. No. 118423 June 16, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESARIO SANCHEZ

  • G.R. No. 120270 June 16, 1998 - MANOLITO BARLES, ET AL. v. BENEDICTO ERNESTO BITONIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126768 June 16, 1998 - ELISEO FAVILA, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103949 June 17, 1998 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104319 June 17, 1998 - CAROLINA CASTILLO v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106648 June 17, 1998 - AUDION ELECTRIC CO. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122423 June 17, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ILDEFONSO PUERTOLLANO

  • G.R. No. 123109 June 17, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN TACLAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124097 June 17, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS BONGHANOY

  • G.R. No. 126367 June 17, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO S. MONFERO

  • G.R. No. 127452 June 17, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISAGANI LUARTES

  • G.R. No. 128222 June 17, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CHUA HO SAN

  • G.R. No. 128818 June 17, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELICIANO U. SAGAYSAY

  • G.R. Nos. 130206-08 June 17, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO PALMA

  • G.R. No. 130514 June 17, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ABUNDIO TOLENTINO

  • G.R. No. 131104 June 17, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RIZALINO P. REBOSE

  • G.R. No. 132024 June 17, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO BIHISON

  • G.R. No. 124605 June 18, 1998 - ENRIQUITO SERNA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-98-1165 June 21, 1998 - EXEQUIEL P. DOMINGO v. LUIS ENRIQUEZ REYES, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1445 June 21, 1998 - VENTURA B. AYO v. LUCIA VIOLAGO-ISNANI, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 99-1-16-RTC June 21, 1998 - REQUEST OF JUDGE IRMA ZITA V. MASAMAYOR

  • G.R. No. 101439 June 21, 1998 - GSIS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106060 June 21, 1998 - EMILIE T. SUMBAD, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112539 June 21, 1998 - NATIONAL SUGAR REFINERIES CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117685 June 21, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFONSO R. BAUTISTA

  • G.R. No. 121646 June 21, 1998 - CLARO L. MONTECER, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126116 June 21, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERLINDO YAM-ID

  • G.R. No. 128892 June 21, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEPITO TEJERO

  • G.R. No. 128986 June 21, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130379 June 21, 1998 - GSIS v. ANGELITA L. GABRIEL

  • G.R. No. 130640 June 21, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SHAREFF ALI EL AKHTAR

  • G.R. No. 130652 June 21, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOEL S. DIAZ

  • G.R. No. 132774 June 21, 1998 - RODOLFO E. AGUINALDO v. COMELEC

  • G.R. No. 132841 June 21, 1998 - CARMEN ALIPAT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134293 June 21, 1998 - KAISER B. RECABO v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 116196-97 June 23, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO ADOVISO

  • G.R. No. 120473 June 23, 1998 - ULTRA VILLA FOOD HAUS v. RENATO GENISTON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121345 June 23, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SY BING YOK

  • G.R. No. 129676 June 23, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS BOCO, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-99-1314 June 25, 1998 - ROSANNA V. CASALME, ET AL. v. MARVIN S. RIVERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100812 June 25, 1998 - FRANCISCO MOTORS CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127105 June 25, 1998 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. S.C. JOHNSON AND SON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127969 June 25, 1998 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129033 June 25, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HIPOLITO BERMUDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130030 June 25, 1998 - EXPERTRAVEL & TOURS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130189 June 25, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO R. MULETA

  • G.R. No. 132593 June 25, 1998 - PHIL. INTERNATIONAL TRADING CORP. v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 105912 June 28, 1998 - TEOFILO C. VILLARICO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 110855-56 June 28, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DEWING V. CAÑETA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112451 June 28, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE BITOON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124005 June 28, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TOMAS ABLOG

  • G.R. No. 125212 June 28, 1998 - EUGENIO BALUGO, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130421 June 28, 1998 - AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE CO. v. ANTONIO CHUA

  • A.M. No. P-96-1183 June 29, 1998 - LUCINA L. REGALADO v. LILIA S. BUENA

  • A.M. Nos. RTJ-96-1347 & RTJ-96-1348 June 29, 1998 - LEO C. TABAO v. PEDRO S. ESPINA

  • G.R. No. 95405 June 29, 1998 - SEMIRARA COAL CORP. v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 121205-09 June 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESAR LARENA

  • G.R. Nos. 124449-51 June 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL ALITAGTAG

  • G.R. No. 125465 June 29, 1998 - AUGUSTO HONTIVEROS, ET AL. v. GREGORIO HONTIVEROS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125473 June 29, 1998 - CONSTANCIO ESPIRITU v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127356 June 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAVID SILVANO

  • G.R. No. 128315 June 29, 1998 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. PASCOR REALTY AND DEV’T. CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128384 June 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO SAHOR BAÑAGO

  • G.R. No. 129449 June 29, 1998 - CISELL A. KIAMCO v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129691 June 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE LOMBOY

  • G.R. No. 130800 June 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GUILLERMO NEPOMUCENO

  • G.R. No. 131109 June 29, 1998 - INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132369 June 29, 1998 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REMEGIO RUIZ

  • G.R. No. 133317 June 29, 1998 - ANTONIO R. AGRA, ET AL. v. PNB

  • G.R. No. 119974 June 30, 1998 - RUPERTO L. VILORIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124049 June 30, 1998 - RODOLFO P. VELASQUEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.