SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

A.M. No. 1439-MJ July 22, 1980

THERESITA O. REVITA, Complainant, vs. MUNICIPAL JUDGE SERGIO F. RIMANDO of Tinglayan now Lubuagan, Kalinga-Apayao, Respondent.

Theresita O. Revita in her complaint dated July 26, 1976 charged respondent judge with gross ignorance of the law for having dismissed the grave slander case filed by her against Lorenzo A. Viñas

At the instance of Mrs. Revita, 35, a postal employee, a police investigator in a complainant dated September 2, 1974 filed in the municipal court of Lubuagan, Kalinga-Apayao charged with grave slander Mrs. Viñas, 44, a high school principal.chanrobles virtual law library

Municipal Judge Cornelia U. Costales on January 25, 1975 conducted a preliminary examination of the case. He found that the offense committed was light oral defamation. Instead of issuing a warrant of arrest, he set the case for arraignment and trial on February 19, 1975 at eight-thirty in the morning. Mrs. Viñas was served with a copy of that order on February 4, 1975.chanrobles virtual law library

The private prosecutor tiled a motion for reconsideration of that order. He argued that the court could not amend the complaint by regarding the crime charged as a light offense. He prayed that a warrant of arrest be issued. That motion was not set for hearing and the defense was not furnished with a copy thereof. Judge Costales did not act on it.chanrobles virtual law library

Mrs. Viñas filed a bail bond for an unspecified amount but it was not acted upon by Judge Costales.chanrobles virtual law library

No arraignment was held on the scheduled date. On May 5, 1975, Judge Costales issued an order wherein he inhibited himself from trying the case on the ground of delicadeza because complainant's husband had sent a telegram to the Assistant Judicial Consultant imputing bias to the judge as shown by his disinclination to issue a warrant of arrest and allowing the postponement of the arraignment and trial.chanrobles virtual law library

This Court in its resolution of August 5, 1975 approved the designation by Executive Judge Honorio N. Salvatera of Judge Sergio F. Rimando of Tinglayan Kalinga-Apayao to try the said case in place of Judge Costales.

In an order dated September 26, 1975, Judge Rimando at the instance of the defense counsel, reset the arraignment and hearing on October 23, 1975.chanrobles virtual law library

At the arraignment, Mrs. Viñas pleaded not guilty. Her counsel orally moved to quash the complaint on several grounds. Defense counsel was given thirty days to submit a written motion to quash with a memorandum. The prosecution was given thirty days to file its opposition.chanrobles virtual law library

In the motion to dismiss filed by the defense, a copy of which was furnished the provincial fiscal and the private prosecutor, it was contended that Mrs. Viñas was denied due process because she was arraigned for grave slander although Judge Costales had already ruled that the offense was light oral defamation; that the imputation Garampang ka nga babae" is not libelous and that the complaint does not conform substantially with the prescribed form because the alleged defamatory imputation was not translated into English or the national language.chanrobles virtual law library

Atty. Tanding B. Odiem (vice-governor), the private prosecutor, opposed the motion to dismiss. Judge Rimando set the motion to dismiss for oral argument three times. The oral argument was not held. Hence, the motion was submitted for resolution without oral argument.chanrobles virtual law library

Respondent judge in his order of April 29, 1976 dismissed the complaint. The prosecution did not appeal from that order. The record does not show whether an independent civil action for damages was filed by Mrs. Revita against Mrs. Viñas Instead, Mrs. Revita came to this Court and denounced the respondent for alleged gross ignorance of the law. Her complaint was received on October 25, 1976.chanrobles virtual law library

She contends that the respondent should not have given due course to the motion to dismiss without obtaining the fiscal's written conformity. That contention is not correct. There is no rule requiring the fiscal to give his conformity to a motion to dismiss or to quash.

Complainant Revita contends that the motion to dismiss should not have been resolved without hearing the oral arguments of the parties. That contention is also devoid of merit. The motion was thoroughly argued in the written motion itself and in the private prosecutor's opposition thereto. It was orally argued even before the written motion was filed or at the hearing on October 29, 1975 after the accused pleaded not guilty.chanrobles virtual law library

The complainant blamed the respondent for tolerating the filing by Mrs. Viñas of a bail bond although no warrant of arrest was issued. That irregularity was imputable to Judge Costales and not to the respondent.chanrobles virtual law library

The so-called bail bond was incomplete and ineffectual. There was no amount stated therein. It was not dated. It was not approved by the court.chanrobles virtual law library

What the respondent could have done when he took over the case from Judge Costales was to review the record and to act on private prosecutor's motion for the reconsideration of the dictum in Judge Costales' order that the offense committed was only light oral defamation and not grave slander and then to issue an order for the arrest of the accused and fixing the amount of bail.chanrobles virtual law library

Complainant Revita contends that the respondent erred in dismissing the complaint. There is merit in that contention.chanrobles virtual law library

Respondent judge predicated his order of dismissal on the grounds that the imputation "Garampang ka nga babae" was not translated into English or the national language and that those words are not defamatory because they are similar to the expression "Putang ina mo" which was not considered slanderous because it is used merely "to express anger or displeasure" (Reyes vs. People, L-21528 and 21529, March 28, 1969, 27 SCRA 686,693).chanrobles virtual law library

It is true that the complaint filed in the municipal court does not contain a translation of the words Garampang ka nga babae" but it is also true that the affidavits of Mrs. Revita and her witness, Benito Busal which support the complaint for grave slander and form part of the record (accessible to the accused) contain, an English translation of the alleged defamatory imputation.chanrobles virtual law library

According to the two affidavits, the libelous words uttered by Mrs. Viñas were: "Sika Talipa, napangas ka adu ti complaints kenka nga kaapam amin nga omay ditoy opisina ti Bureau of Posts. Garampang ka nga babae". These words were translated as follows: "You, Talipa, you are a show-off There are lots of complaints against you that you quarrel with all those who come to the post office. You flirt and fool around with men. "

If, as translated in the affidavits, the words "Garampang ka nga babae" means "You flirt and fool around with men", then, that expression is certainly defamatory and is not a mere cussword or profanity like "Putang ina mo".chanrobles virtual law library

Moreover, respondent judge overlooked that Mrs. Viñas by not moving to quash the complaint (before she entered her plea of not guilty) on the ground that it does not conform substantially to the prescribed form, waived that objection (Sec. 10, Rule 117, Rules of Court).chanrobles virtual law library

Respondent judge should not have dismissed the complaint without first hearing the prosecution's evidence. As correctly stated by him, the offense of grave slander charged in the complaint is within the jurisdiction of the municipal court since Lubuagan is the capital of the subprovince of Kalinga.

Thus, the respondent, in sustaining the contention of Mrs. Viñas that the complaint was defective and that the facts alleged therein did not constitute grave slander, created the impression that he was just looking for a pretext to dismiss the complaint.chanrobles virtual law library

Respondent's order of dismissal laid himself open to complainant's suspicion that he did not act with the cold neutrality of an impartial judge.chanrobles virtual law library

The rule is that after hearing a municipal judge may be suspended or removed if it is ascertained that he is not performing his duties properly or that he is unfit for the office (Sec. 97. Judiciary Law).chanrobles virtual law library

In the instant case, it may be argued that the respondent committed an error of judgment in dismissing the complaints for grave slander and thus causing (at least in complainant's opinion) a miscarriage of justice.chanrobles virtual law library

However, there is no proof that the error was attributable to a conscious and deliberate intent to perpetrate an injustice (In re Climaco, Adm. Case No. 134-J, January 21, 1974, 55 SCRA 107,119).

As a matter of public policy, in the absence of fraud, dishonesty, or corruption, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action, even though such acts are erroneous (48 C.J.S. 974).

However, although a judge may not always be subjected to disciplinary action for an error of judgment or unawareness of the appropriate legal rules, that does not mean that he should not evince due care in performing his adjudicatory prerogatives. "He should be studious of the principles of the law and diligent in endeavoring to ascertain the facts" (Par. 5, Canons of Judicial Ethics).chanrobles virtual law library

It is his constant obligation to study his cases thoroughly and to act with justice, give everyone his due, observe honesty and good faith and maintain an irreproachable conduct.chanrobles virtual law library

WHEREFORE, respondent judge is admonished to exercise more prudence and circumspection in the performance of his duties as municipal judge. He is warned or reminded that appropriate disciplinary action will be taken against him if he commits any culpable impropriety and neglect in the discharge of his official functions. A copy of this decision should be attached to his personal record.chanrobles virtual law library

SO ORDERED.