Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1999 > March 1999 Decisions > A.M. No. MTJ-99-1178 March 3, 1999 - COMELEC v. BUCO R. DATU-IMAN:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[A.M. No. MTJ-99-1178. March 3, 1999.]

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Complainant, v. JUDGE BUCO R. DATU-IMAN, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Bayang, Lanao del Sur, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N


MENDOZA, J.:


This complaint was filed by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) against respondent Judge Buco R. Datu-Iman of the Fifth Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Bayang-Tubaran-Binidiyan-Butig-Lambatan-Marogong-Lumbayanagui (hereinafter referred to as Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Bayang), Lanao del Sur, 1 for gross ignorance of the law for enjoining enforcement of a COMELEC directive issued in connection with the barangay elections of May 9, 1994 in Bayang, Lanao del Sur.

It appears that, on March 29 and 31, 1994, the Commission on Elections sent telegrams to election officials in Lanao del Sur ordering them to delete Barangay Sumbago from the list of barangays in the Municipality of Bayang on the ground that it had not been legally created. Accordingly, the officials refused to accept for filing certificates of candidacy of those seeking office in Barangay Sumbago in the May 9, 1994 barangay elections. However, barangay officials seeking reelection brought suit (Civil Case No. 08-BA, Monadi, Et. Al. v. Commission on Elections) in the Fifth Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Bayang to stop implementation of the COMELEC directive.

Respondent, who had been designated acting judge of that court, issued a temporary restraining order on April 9, 1994 and, after hearing, rendered a decision on May 2, 1994 granting injunction. He held that a mere telegram order of the COMELEC cannot prevail over Executive Order No. 108, dated December 24, 1986, of then President Corazon C. Aquino which listed Sumbago among the barangays duly created in Region XII.

By virtue of the temporary restraining order of respondent judge, the Election Officer of Bayang, Lanao del Sur allowed the filing of certificates of candidacy for barangay positions in Sumbago. However, upon being informed of the issuance of the order, the COMELEC issued Resolution No. 94-2947, dated May 17, 1994, directing election officials to disregard the temporary restraining order and delete Barangay Sumbago from the list of barangays in the Municipality of Bayang, Lanao del Sur, as previously ordered. At the same time, the COMELEC referred the present case to this Court for "appropriate [disciplinary] action" against Respondent. The COMELEC contended that, in taking cognizance of the case, respondent showed "patent ignorance of the law" because he had no power to issue an injunction against the COMELEC, especially "considering the status and rank of the issuing court in relation to that of the COMELEC." 2

On the other hand, respondent claimed in his comment that he issued the temporary restraining order in good faith on the basis of certifications that Barangay Sumbago had been given internal revenue allotments by the Department of Budget and Management and had been recognized by the DILG ARMM, Provincial DILG, Municipal DILG, and DBM Cotabato City. He claimed that he issued the injunction in question lest the residents of Barangay Sumbago be deprived of their right of self-government considering that it was the last day for the filing of certificates of candidacy and that there were "ill-motivated persons who attempted to sow confusion and disorder in the barangay using the [COMELEC] telegram as a tool." chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

In its memorandum, dated January 26, 1999, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommends that the complaint against respondent judge be dismissed and that instead he simply be admonished to be more circumspect in the performance of his duties.

It appears that respondent compulsorily retired on December 7, 1998 from the service. He prays that a clearance be issued to him so that he can collect his retirement benefits, less any amount which "the Court may deem just, right, equitable, and reasonable." He states that he is in dire need of the money for his medical care and for the educational expenses of his family.

The issue in this case is whether respondent judge is liable for gross ignorance of the law for issuing an injunction against the COMELEC. We think he is, although, as will presently be explained, there are mitigating factors which should be considered in his favor.

First of all, as already pointed out in a 1968 dictum, 3 because of their subordinate status and rank vis-a-vis the COMELEC, lower courts cannot issue writs of injunction enforceable against the COMELEC. More importantly, respondent ought to have known that, since its creation, the COMELEC has been accorded full discretion given its constitutional mandate to enforce and administer all laws relative to the conduct of election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall. 4 This was stressed in the decision of this Court in Zaldivar v. Estenzo. 5 Quoting from its prior decisions, this Court held:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

In the discharge of its functions, it should not be hampered with restrictions that would be fully warranted in the case of a less responsible organization. The Commission may err, so may this court also. It should be allowed considerable latitude in devising means and methods that will insure the accomplishment of the great objective for which it was created — free, orderly and honest elections.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

x       x       x


[I]t is easy to understand why no interference whatsoever with the performance of the Commission on Elections of its functions should be allowed unless emanating from this Court. The observation of Acting Chief Justice J.B.L. Reyes in Albano v. Arranz [4 SCRA 386 (1962)], while not precisely in point, indicates the proper approach. Thus: "It is easy to realize the chaos that would ensue if the Court of First Instance of each and every province were to arrogate unto itself the power to disregard, suspend, or contradict any order of the Commission on Elections; that constitutional body would be speedily reduced to impotence." 6

It is imperative that judges be conversant with basic legal principles. 7 Indeed, the Code of Judicial Conduct enjoins judges to "be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence." 8

However, respondent’s liability is somewhat mitigated by the fact that, as found by the OCA,

Respondent judge acted on the basis of the documentary evidence presented before him which he considered valid justification in taking cognizance of the case. These documents are Executive Order No. 108 retaining Sumbago as a barangay, and records from the DILG/ARMM, Provincial DILG, Municipal DILG and DBM showing that barangay Sumbago is an existing barangay. In fact, it has been funded by the DBM since 1993 with Bank Account No. 1262-1043-18.

Nor was the COMELEC without fault. As respondent pointed out in his decision, dated May 2, 1994, no representative of the COMELEC (the Provincial Election Officer and the Municipal Election Officer of Bayang, Lanao del Sur, who were named respondents in the case) appeared at any of the hearings set on April 21, 1994, April 26, 1994, and April 29, 1994 despite notice. It appears that no opposition to the petition for injunction was ever filed by the COMELEC. With respect to the first hearing on April 21, 1994, the record shows that the local election officers notified the COMELEC head office in Manila only on April 25, 1994. Upon being advised of the issuance of the TRO and the hearing on the writ of injunction, the COMELEC apparently did nothing except to tell its provincial officials to disregard the TRO and to delete Sumbago from the masterlist of barangays as previously ordered. The COMELEC could have filed an opposition and thereby save respondent from committing the error of issuing an injunction. It could have instituted certiorari proceedings in this Court to annul the proceedings conducted by respondent in Civil Case No. 08-BA and thus forestall the rendition of judgment against it.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

For, although respondent was presumed to know the constitutional limits of his authority, parties too have a responsibility to bring before him arguments and evidence for his consideration in the decision of the case. For the failure of the COMELEC to do so, respondent judge was deprived of the benefit of an adversary proceeding. Jeremy Bentham in effect described the relationship between the judge and counsel when he insisted that the law is not made by judge alone but by "Judge and Company."cralaw virtua1aw library

Finally, in assessing the liability of respondent, account should be made of the fact that this appears to be his first administrative case in his entire judicial career which spanned thirteen years. 9

The Office of the Court Administrator recommends that respondent be simply admonished. We would agree with this recommendation in light of the mitigating factors above stated. However, inasmuch as respondent is now retired, an admonition would have no practical effect. A fine of P1,000.00 would seem to be the more appropriate penalty under the circumstances. 10

WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Judge Buco R. Datu-Iman of the Fifth Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Bayang-Tubaran-Binidiyan-Butig-Lambatan-Marogong-Lumbayanagui, Lanao del Sur GUILTY of gross ignorance of the law and IMPOSES on him a FINE of P1,000.00 to be deducted from retirement benefits due him.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary:red

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Kapunan, Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo, Buena and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.

Vitug and Panganiban, JJ., on official leave.

Endnotes:



1. Designated as acting presiding judge thereof per Administrative Order No. 170-92, dated October 16, 1992. Respondent’s regular station is at the 7th Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Ditsaan-Ramain-Bubong-Buadiposo-Buntong, Lanao del Sur.

2. The COMELEC cited as its basis Macud v. COMELEC, 23 SCRA 224, 229 (1968).

3. Macud v. COMELEC, 23 SCRA 224 (1968).

4. CONST., Art. IX-C, 2(1).

5. 23 SCRA 533 (1968).

6. Id., pp. 539-541.

7. Guieb v. Fontanilla, 247 SCRA 348 (1995).

8. Canon 3, Rule 3.01.

9. From May 3, 1985, when he was appointed, to December 7, 1998, when he retired.

10. Cf . Amatan v. Aujero, 248 SCRA 511 (1995).




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





March-1999 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 99266 March 2, 1999 - SAN MIGUEL CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117105 March 2, 1999 - TIMES TRANSIT CREDIT COOP. INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124320 March 2, 1999 - HEIRS OF GUIDO YAPTINCHAY, ET AL. v. ROY S. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125138 March 2, 1999 - NICHOLAS Y. CERVANTES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125683 March 2, 1999 - EDEN BALLATAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126134 March 2, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. JOVEN DE LA CUESTA

  • G.R. No. 131047 March 2, 1999 - TOYOTA AUTOPARTS, PHILS., INC. v. BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1178 March 3, 1999 - COMELEC v. BUCO R. DATU-IMAN

  • A.M. No. P-94-1107 March 3, 1999 - CARMELINA CENIZA-GUEVARRA v. CELERINA R. MAGBANUA

  • G.R. No. 93090 March 3, 1999 - ROMEO CABELLAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127575 March 3, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HONORIO CANTERE

  • G.R. No. 127801 March 3, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SAMUEL YU VALDEZ

  • G.R. No. 130347 March 3, 1999 - ABELARDO VALARAO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134096 March 3, 1999 - JOSEPH PETER S. SISON v. COMELEC

  • A.M. No. P-99-1286 March 4, 1999 - CONCEPCION L. JEREZ v. ARTURO A. PANINSURO

  • G.R. No. 108027 March 4, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRISTINA M. HERNANDEZ

  • G.R. No. 111676 March 4, 1999 - SILVINA TORRES VDA. DE CRUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117213 March 4, 1999 - ARMANDO DE GUZMAN v. MARIANO ONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122539 March 4, 1999 - JESUS V. TIOMICO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123936 March 4, 1999 - RONALD SORIANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132648 March 4, 1999 - GSIS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133563 March 4, 1999 - BRIDGET BONENG v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 123792 March 8, 1999 - MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125537 March 8, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. JOSE MAGLANTAY

  • A.C. CBD No. 167 March 9, 1999 - PRUDENCIO S. PENTICOSTES v. DIOSDADO S. IBAÑEZ

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-99-1175 March 9, 1999 - VICTORINO CRUZ v. REYNOLD Q. YANEZA

  • G.R. No. 108532 March 9, 1999 - PABLITO TANEO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115741 March 9, 1999 - HEIRS OF JOAQUIN ASUNCION v. MARGARITO GERVACIO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121587 March 9, 1999 - SOLEDAD DY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126123 March 9, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO PLATILLA

  • G.R. No. 128721 March 9, 1999 - CRISMINA GARMENTS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-94-1106 March 10, 1999 - ADALIA B. FRANCISCO v. ROLANDO G. LEYVA

  • Adm. Matters No. RTJ-98-1423 March 10, 1999 - ROMAN CAGATIN, ET AL. v. LEONARDO N. DEMECILLO

  • G.R. No. 95815 March 10, 1999 - SERVANDO MANGAHAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120163 March 10, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DATUKON BANSIL

  • G.R. No. 120971 March 10, 1999 - TAGGAT INDUSTRIES, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123426 March 10, 1999 - NAT’L. FEDERATION OF LABOR v. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA

  • G.R. No. 126874 March 10, 1999 - GSIS v. ANTONIO P. OLISA

  • G.R. No. 127123 March 10, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSEPH LAKINDANUM

  • G.R. No. 129442 March 10, 1999 - FEDERICO PALLADA, ET AL. v. RTC OF KALIBO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129824 March 10, 1999 - DE PAUL/KING PHILIP CUSTOMS TAILOR, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-99-1293 March 11, 1999 - EMILIO DILAN, ET AL. v. JUAN R. DULFO

  • G.R. No. 95326 March 11, 1999 - ROMEO P. BUSUEGO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106518 March 11, 1999 - ABS-CBN SUPERVISORS EMPLOYEES UNION MEMBERS v. ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 108440-42 March 11, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE MERCADO

  • G.R. No. 109721 March 11, 1999 - FELIX A. SAJOT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109979 March 11, 1999 - RICARDO C. SILVERIO, SR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119157 March 11, 1999 - GOLDEN THREAD KNITTING INDUSTRIES, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125590 March 11, 1999 - BIOMIE S. OCHAGABIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127004 March 11, 1999 - NAT’L. STEEL CORP. v. RTC OF LANAO DEL NORTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127663 March 11, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO VALDEZ

  • G.R. No. 132250 March 11, 1999 - ROSALIA P. SALVA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET. AL.

  • G.R. No. 123982 March 15, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO K. JOYNO

  • G.R. No. 134188 March 15, 1999 - NUR G. JAAFAR v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 61508 March 17, 1999 - CITIBANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111704 March 17, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GEORGE DE LA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 115693 March 17, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SILVERIANO BOTONA

  • G.R. No. 119347 March 17, 1999 - EULALIA RUSSELL, ET AL. v. AUGUSTINE A. VESTIL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120751 March 17, 1999 - PHIMCO INDUSTRIES v. JOSE BRILLANTES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125311 March 17, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ONYOT MAHINAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129695 March 17, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO TABONES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130380 March 17, 1999 - HEIRS OF GAUDENCIO BLANCAFLOR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115006 March 18, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO MARCOS

  • G.R. No. 119756 March 18, 1999 - FORTUNE EXPRESS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127542 March 18, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CHENG HO CHUA

  • G.R. No. 128682 March 18, 1999 - JOAQUIN T. SERVIDAD v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 97-6-182-RTC March 19, 1999 - RE: REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN RTC, BRANCH 68

  • G.R. No. 96262 March 22, 1999 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. EMBROIDERY AND GARMENTS INDUSTRIES (PHIL.)

  • G.R. No. 116738 March 22, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODRIGO DOMOGOY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126286 March 22, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGER VAYNACO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126714 March 22, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO MARCELO

  • G.R. No. 127523 March 22, 1999 - LEONCIA ALIPOON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-99-1296 March 25, 1999 - DANIEL CRUZ v. CLERK OF COURT, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-99-1297 March 25, 1999 - LUDIVINA MARISGA-MAGBANUA v. EMILIO T. VILLAMAR V

  • G.R. No. 96740 March 25, 1999 - VIRGINIA P. SARMIENTO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 103953 March 25, 1999 - SAMAHANG MAGBUBUKID NG KAPDULA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112088 March 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RONALDO ALMADEN

  • G.R. Nos. 116741-43 March 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDWIN MONTEFALCON

  • G.R. No. 117154 March 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO A. BORROMEO

  • G.R. No. 119172 March 25, 1999 - BELEN C. FIGUERRES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120505 March 25, 1999 - AIUP, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 122966-67 March 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGAR S. ALOJADO

  • G.R. No. 123160 March 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS BATION

  • G.R. No. 124300 March 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENANTE ROBLES

  • G.R. No. 125053 March 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CHRISTOPHER CAÑA LEONOR

  • G.R. Nos. 126183 & 129221 March 25, 1999 - LUZVIMINDA DE LA CRUZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126916 March 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOLINO BACONG MANAGAYTAY

  • G.R. No 127373 March 25, 1999 - ENERGY REGULATORY BOARD, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127662 March 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO V. ERIBAL

  • G.R. No. 127708 March 25, 1999 - CITY GOVERNMENT OF SAN PABLO, ET AL. v. BIENVENIDO V. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128386 March 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUDITO ALQUIZALAS

  • G.R. No. 130491 March 25, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO MENGOTE

  • G.R. No. 130872 March 25, 1999 - FRANCISCO M. LECAROZ, ET AL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131108 March 25, 1999 - ASIAN ALCOHOL CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132980 March 25, 1999 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. GLADYS C. LABRADOR

  • G.R. No. 133107 March 25, 1999 - RCBC v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-96-1082 & 98-10-135-MCTC March 29, 1999 - MARCELO CUEVA v. OLIVER T. VILLANUEVA

  • A.M. No. P-94-1015 March 29, 1999 - JASMIN MAGUAD, ET AL. v. NICOLAS DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93291 March 29, 1999 - SULPICIO LINES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113150 March 29, 1999 - HENRY TANCHAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122827 March 29, 1999 - LIDUVINO M. MILLARES, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125129 March 29, 1999 - JOSEPH H. REYES v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 129058 March 29, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAULINO SEVILLENO

  • G.R. No. 131124 March 29, 1999 - OSMUNDO G. UMALI v. TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123540 March 30, 1999 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DELFIN AYO