ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ A.M. No. MTJ-00-1244. July 3, 2000]

ADELINA B. BUE vs. JUDGE ARSENIO BASE, JR.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 3 2000.

A.M. No. MTJ-00-1244 (Adelina B. Bue vs. Judge Arsenio Base, Jr.)

On October 16, 1997, complainant Adelina B. Bue, single, filed with this Court a sworn complaint1 Rollo , pp. 2-4. against Aresenio Base, Jr., Presiding Judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Malinao, Albay. In brief, she alleged that she had pending before the sala of respondent judge five cases but that the later manifested partiality against her by repeatedly convincing her to settle the case; and that she again attempted to file another criminal action before respondent judge against a certain Arturo Cardano who attacked her and her sister, Margarita, with a bolo inside her house, wherein said complainant lost her left small finger. However, respondent judge refused to entertain her complaint and, instead, threatened her that more serious harm might befall her if she continued to refuse to withdraw her cases before his sala. Hence, complainant charged respondent judge with violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. 3019 (The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and R.A. 6713 (Code of Ethical Conduct Standards for Government Employees and Public Officials.

Complainant failed to attach copies of the annexes to her sworn complaint, for which reason she was directed to submit the same to this Court. She replied by handwritten letter dated February 20, 1999,2 Ibid ., p. 6. stating that she can no longer attend to her case since she was suffering from breast cancer and was already bed-ridden. Subsequently, on February 3, 2000, this Court received a note from Praxidio B. Bue, saying that complainant had already died last December 18, 1999.3 Ibid ., p. 11.

Meanwhile, respondent judge, in compliance with this Court's Resolution of January 17, 2000,4 Ibid ., p. 9.4 filed his answer on February 22, 2000.5 Ibid ., p. 16-17.5 He denied the charges of impartiality against him, and contended that he merely tried to encourage complainant to settle or enter into an amicable settlement of her cases inasmuch as the actions pending before his sala were piling up. Anent complainant's intended action against Arturo Cardano, respondent judge alleged that he talked to complainant about a settlement, and she agreed but later failed to appear at the conference which respondent had scheduled.

With the death of complainant, this Court can no longer verify the truth of her allegations, especially considering the absence of the annexes which were supposedly appended to the complaint. Hence, this Court is inclined to dismiss the instant action. However, respondent judge must be sanctioned for his conduct and actuation regarding the criminal complaint which Ms. Bue had wanted to file against Arturo Cardano. From respondent judge's answer, his admission of not having immediately acted on the complaint can be clearly drawn. Rather than accept the complaint for preliminary investigation, he proposed that complainant settle her dispute with Cardano and even went as far as to schedule a conference between the parties. This course of action ran afoul of the basic legal principle that a criminal case cannot be the subject of settlement.6 CIVIL CODE, Article 2034. It must be stressed that the loss of finger suffered by complainant as a result of the attack was no minor matter. The attack constituted serious physical injury,7 REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 263 (3). a less grave felony.8 REVISED PENAL CODE, Article 9. Therefore, respondent judge should at the very least be admonished for his summary treatment of complainant's criminal complaint and his failure to immediately act thereon.

ACCORDINGLY, the instant administrative complaint against respondent judge is DISMISSED. However, respondent judge is ADMONISHED for failing to immediately and properly act on the criminal complaint filed before him, and is sternly warned that a repetition of this or any similar act in the future shall be dealt with more severely.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE