SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

A.M. No. 49-J March 27, 1974

GUILLERMO LADRADA, Complainant, vs. ERNESTO B. CACHOLA, Municipal Judge of Lugait, Misamis Oriental, Respondent.

R E S O L U T I O N

FERNANDEZ, J.:

The respondent is charged with dishonesty, gross ignorance of the law and incompetence, in connection with his decision acquitting the accused in a criminal case for less serious physical injuries (Crim. Case No. 237).chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

There is no evidence on the charge of dishonesty. With respect to the charge of ignorance of the law and incompetence, We find that respondent had acted improperly in deciding the criminal case, which was wholly tried by then Acting Municipal Judge Noe D. Eballe of Lugait, for he merely relied on the handwritten notes taken during the trial by Judge Eballe and the memorandum submitted for the accused. Respondent should have retired the case considering that his court was then not yet a court of record.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

Considering, however, that the respondent was then a newly appointed Judge; that he honestly believed that the notes taken by the former Trial Judge reflect fully and faithfully the material and relevant facts and circumstances of the case; that it was his desire to dispense justice as speedily as possible and save the litigants from further expenses; that the respondent's decision contains an impressive recital of facts and details which may be considered as a proper and substantial basis for his judgment; that his decision has not been assailed by the complainant for lack of evidentiary basis or for being unfair, partial and unjust; and that the complainant himself has submitted an affidavit of desistance which has been affirmed by him in open hearing, We believe that an admonition to the respondent to be more circumspect in the discharge of his official duties in the future, would be sufficient to dispose of this case.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

WHEREFORE, the complaint against the respondent is hereby dismissed. He is, however, admonished to be more circumspect in the future in the discharge of his official duties.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library

So ordered.