ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ A.M. NO. OCA IPI 97-427-MTJ. February 2, 2000]

OMBUDSMAN vs. JUDGE ANTONIO K. CA�ON

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 2 2000.

A.M. No. OCA IPI 97-427-MTJ (Office of the Ombudsman vs. Judge Antonio K. Ca�on.)

This is a complaint filed by the Office of the Ombudsman charging respondent Judge Antonio K. Ca�on of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Bislig-Lingig, Surigao del Sur with gross ignorance of the law and incompetence in the performance of his duties. The complaint stems from an order of respondent dismissing two criminal cases filed by the Office of the Ombudsman.

It appears that Edwin Lesigues filed complaints for less serious physical injuries and arbitrary detention against SPO2 Napoleon T. Peliyo and PO2 Reynaldo S. Lumancas in the Office of the Ombudsman. He alleged that at around 11:30 p.m. of August 24, 1996, while he was waiting for a ride home, he was approached by PO2 Lumancas who asked him for his identity. After identifying himself as a "SCAA (CAGFU Active Auxillary)," Lesigues was slapped several times by SPO2 Peliyo who accused Lesigues of being an imposter. He was then made to board a tricycle and the driver was ordered to proceed to Bislig Airport where the two PNP officers said they would kill Lesigues. Later, however, he was taken to jail from which he was eventually released.

Finding probable cause, the Ombudsman Investigator filed the corresponding informations in the MCTC, Bislig-Lingig, Surigao del Sur, where the informations were docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 2468 and 2469. Respondent dismissed the cases, however, on the ground of forum shopping. Respondent said that Lesigues did not disclose the fact that there were pending criminal cases for direct assault, usurpation of authority, and grave oral defamation filed against him (Lesigues) in the MCTC, Bislig-Lingig, Surigao del Sur by SPO2 Peliyo and PO2 Lumancas, and that Lesigues filed cases arising from the same incident before the Ombudsman.

In his comment on the complaint, respondent claims that neither the public prosecutor nor the private prosecutor filed an opposition to the accused's Motion to Dismiss and Quash Warrant in Criminal Case Nos. 2468 and 2469. He states that private complainant Lesigues was guilty of forum shopping because Lesigues, "filed his cause of action against both accused arising from one, similar, and identical incidents into separate bodies, the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and the Court." In any event, he says he has since then reconsidered his order and issued warrants for the arrest of SPO2 Peliyo and PO2 Lumancas, although the recall of his order of dismissal should not be considered an admission that he is ignorant of the law.

In its memorandum, dated January 7, 2000, the Office of the Court Administrator recommends that this complaint be dismissed for lack of merit.

The Court finds the recommendation well taken. Not every erroneous ruling of a judge exposes him to administrative liability where, as here, it does not appear that he was actuated by ill motive and he has timely corrected himself by granting the prosecution's motion for reconsideration. Indeed, an administrative complaint is not the appropriate remedy for every act of a judge deemed aberrant or irregular or where a judicial remedy exists and is available. (Santos v. Orlino, 296 SCRA 101 (1998))

WHEREFORE, the complaint against Judge Antonio K. Ca�on of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Bislig-Lingig, Surigao del Sur is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE