ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[A.M. No. RTJ-01-1643.July 3, 2002]
HUENEFELD vs. JUDGE CONSULTA
FIRST DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 0 3 JUL 2002.
A.M. No. RTJ-01-1643 [formerly OCA IPI No. 01-1186-RTJ] (Richard Huenefeld vs. Judge Gregorio A. Consulta, Regional Trial Court, Branch 4, Legazpi City.)
This case originated from a sworn letter-complaint filed by Richard Huenefeld against Judge Gregorio A. Consulta charging the latter with gross ignorance of the law and conduct unbecoming a judge relative to his actuations in Criminal Case No. 8982 (People vs. Honrado, et al.) where Huenefeld was the private complainant.
Complainant alleged that respondent Judge issued a warrant of arrest simultaneous with the order of release of the accused despite the fact that the accused was not arrested, had not surrendered nor posted bail. He further alleged that respondent Judge allowed Atty. Wilfredo M. Pe�aflor, Assistant Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), to act as counsel for the accused. Complainant was likewise challenging respondent Judge's order granting a reinvestigation of the case by the Ombudsman even after the accused had posted bail which, according to him, prevented him from filing a motion for the inhibition of respondent Judge from further hearing the case. In addition, complainant was questioning the order of respondent Judge requiring him to return, on pain of contempt of court, the photocopies of the warrant of arrest he secured from the branch clerk of court. Finally, complainant averred that respondent Judge used language and exhibited conduct unbecoming a judge.
Respondent Judge denied the charges against him. He countered that the warrant of arrest and the order of release of the accused were done on the same day because the accused voluntarily appeared before the court and posted bail on even date. He denied any knowledge that Atty. Pe�aflor was the Assistant Secretary of the DAR. Respondent Judge averred that he no longer received the motion for his inhibition because the records of the case were already transmitted to the Office of the Ombudsman as the case was under reinvestigation. He admitted having issued an order recalling the photocopies of the warrant of arrest secured by complainant but explained that it was only due to his standing policy that inquiries relating to any case pending before his sala must be brought to his attention to prevent any complication later. Respondent Judge also admitted having used language that might be inappropriate from the point of view of the complainant, but he explained that he only meant to emphasize his abhorrence against clandestine moves by litigants. He offered his apologies should this Court find his language harsh.
In the Court's resolution, dated August 6, 2001, the case was docketed as a regular administrative matter. In compliance with the same resolution, the parties filed their respective manifestation submitting the case for resolution on the basis of the pleadings filed.
In an administrative proceeding, the complainant has the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, the allegations in his complaint. [1] cralaw After evaluating the records of this case, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), through Deputy Court Administrator Jose P. Perez, found no basis to subject respondent Judge to disciplinary action. However, the OCA recommended that respondent Judge be reprimanded for allowing Atty. Pe�aflor to appear as counsel for the accused, and for his use of intemperate language. While the Court subscribes to the findings of the OCA, it cannot fully adopt its recommendation.
The OCA correctly stated that there was nothing irregular with the issuance of the warrant of arrest and the order of release of the accused on the same day. It would appear from the records of this case that on the date the warrant of arrest was issued, the accused voluntarily appeared before the court and posted bail. Hence, the order for their release on that same date was properly issued.
We likewise agree with the OCA that the grant of reinvestigation even after the accused had posted bail is not contrary to the Rules of Court. Section 26, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure particularly provides that "(a)n application for or admission to bail shall not bar the accused from x x x assailing the regularity x x x of a preliminary investigation x x x." Hence, the accused were not barred from asking for a reinvestigation of the case filed against them.
As regards the motion for inhibition, the OCA correctly stated that respondent Judge could not have acted thereon since the case was already referred to the Office of the Ombudsman and the records were no longer with the trial court. Respondent Judge was correct in disclosing the contents of the "letter" of complainant asking for his inhibition. Such letter, contrary to the assertion of complainant, could not be treated as "privileged and confidential" but must be addressed as a motion. It was only proper that such letter be answered via a court order.
However, the Court is not convinced that respondent Judge can be held liable for allowing the appearance of Atty. Pe�aflor as counsel for the accused.
Complainant assails the appearance of Atty. Pe�aflor as one of the counsels for the accused who are mostly officials and employees of the DAR and some recipients of lands. The records show that Atty. Pe�aflor works in the Policy, Planning and Legal Affairs Office of the DAR. However, it could not be gleaned therefrom that there was an express prohibition for Atty. Pe�aflor to act as counsel for the accused. Indeed, it would appear from the order, dated May 12, 2000, that Atty. Pe�aflor manifested that he could represent the accused land recipients. The Court is inclined to believe the assertion of respondent Judge that while his attention was called that Atty. Pe�aflor was a government employee, he was not informed that he was in fact an assistant secretary of the DAR and that he was proscribed from acting as counsel for the accused.
Finally, the Court views the refusal of respondent Judge to allow any visitor inside his chambers, and his policy of confronting all visitors within hearing distance of his staff to demand what their business was in court, as means to protect the integrity of his sala. His refusal to give any photocopy of the records without his permission might be viewed as a strict stance but hardly unbecoming a judge. In his order, dated April 14, 2000, respondent Judge explained the rationale for his recall of the certified true copies of the warrant of arrest secured by complainant, i.e., to avoid the danger of duplicitous or multiple arrests. The apprehension of respondent Judge seemed to be justified. Indeed, the records would show that complainant furnished the PNP of Legaspi and Camalig of the certified true copies of the warrant of arrest, which led to the arrest of some of the defendants.
Nevertheless, the Court still would like to remind respondent Judge to be more prudent in his choice of words to avoid any misunderstanding in the future. A magistrate must always strive to exercise patience and courtesy to those appearing before him.
WHEREFORE , the instant administrative case is DISMISSED for lack of merit. Respondent Judge Gregorio A. Consulta is ADMONISHED to be more circumspect in his language in the future.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw See Cortes vs. Agcaoili, 294 SCRA 423 (1998).
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
