ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[A.M. OCA IPI No. 03-1455-MTJ.
BARBAZA vs. JUDGE PANGANIBAN
SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this
Court dated
A.M. OCA IPI No. 03-1455-MTJ (Eduvijes Barbaza vs. Judge Elvira D.C. Panganiban, MeTC, Branch 68, em>San Juan , Metro em>Manila .)
Considering the Report dated
... Filed with this office is a VERIFIED-COMPLAINT dated
Complainant, accused in Criminal Case No. 41667, alleges that
herein respondent committed the aforementioned acts when she issued a warrant
for her arrest citing as basis for its issuance a Decision dated
"Wherefore, the petition is granted. The Decision of the
Metropolitan Trial Court as affirmed by the Regional Trial Court, is AFFIRMED
with the sole MODIFICATION that instead of six month [sic] imprisonment meted
on her for violation of BP Blg. 22, petitioner Eduvijes Barbaza is sentenced to
pay a fine in the sum of P37,312.50. No
pronouncement as to costs."
According to complainant, the aforecited
decision has long become final and executory as shown in the Entry of Judgment
dated P37,312.50 on
Complainant states that respondent acted with grave abuse of judicial power when she hastily and without any basis issued the Bench Warrant, causing undue injury to herein complainant. Complainant further states that she was humiliated and almost suffered a fatal heart attack after learning that a Bench warrant was issued against her.
In her COMMENT dated
Respondent alleges that her attention was called when a 2nd Indorsement dated June 21, 2003 was received in her court
signed by Police Officer Abelardo C. Salysay of the Criminal Investigation Detection Division of
the Philippine National Police in Camp Crame,
requesting for the availability of the promulgation Order or warrant of arrest
of herein complainant in Criminal Case No. 41667. Hence, respondent was not
aware [sic] of the existence of said case, she directed that [sic] the court staff to look for the
records of the-case which was located among the files of disposed cases. In her
anxiety for expeditious action and in order to collect money due to the
government, respondent herein immediately issued on
On
Respondent submits that in lifting the warrant of arrest, she acted in good faith. According to her, there was no malice in her mind or any intention to unnecessarily hurt or prejudice herein complainant. She acted in all good faith with the thought that it would be the fastest and surest way to collect the fine due to the government.
In sum, respondent admits her mistake and apologizes to the Honorable Court and the complainant.
Lastly, respondent points (out) that complainant is not totally without fault. Respondent states that when complainant paid the fine, she did not submit any manifestation to the court to the effect that she had already paid the fine and submitted with it a copy of the official receipt of payment. Allegedly, complainant's failure to comply with such duty had misled the Court in issuing the order and warrant in question. Respondent states that herein complainant is also guilty of neglect for her failure to manifest in Court that the fine has been paid.
In her REPLY dated P37,312.50, no imprisonment being
imposed. The wanton and indiscriminate issuance of a Bench warrant, on the mere
request of a certain SPO4 Abelardo Salysay without first examining the records of the case
only shows respondent's incompetence and negligence. Complainant states that it
is highly inconceivable that respondent who has the sworn duty to do justice to
every litigant will commit a very glaring and serious error in issuing the
bench warrant.
Moreover, complainant states that she was compelled to file this instant complaint out of her sincere desire to help the judicial authorities in their relentless campaign to weed out hoodlums in robes.
In her REJOINDER dated
EVALUATION: This instant administrative complaint stems from
the issuance of a warrant of arrest by herein respondent relative to a case which has been
decided on
It is evident from the record of this case, that it was improper for respondent to have issued the warrant of arrest against herein complainant in a criminal case which had long been resolved and the fine having been paid. However, as pointed out by respondent, complainant did not make adequate manifestation to the court that indeed she had already paid the fine and submit official receipt of payment.
This omission on the part of complainant in fact led to
respondent's anxiety to collect money due to the government, and thus she
immediately issued the warrant of arrest to compel herein complainant to pay
the fine imposed by the Court of Appeals in CA GR No. CR 23300, dated
The lack of malicious intent and the contention that no prejudice had resulted since complainant was not arrested should also be given due consideration.
Nonetheless, judges are required to observe due care in the performance of their official duties. They are likewise charged with the knowledge of internal rules and procedures, especially those which relate to the scope of their authority (Cuaresma vs. Aguilar, 226 SCRA 73). In the discharge of the functions of his or her office, a judge must strive to act in a manner that puts him or her and his or her conduct above reproach and beyond suspicion. He or she must act with extreme care for his or her office indeed is laden with a heavy burden of responsibility (OCA vs. Estacion, Jr., 181 SCRA 33).
RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully submitted for the consideration of the Honorable Court with the recommendation that this instant administrative complaint be DISMISSED but that respondent be WARNED to be more circumspect in her future actuations and that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future will be dealt with more severely.
and finding the evaluation and recommendation of the OCA to be in accord with the law and facts of the case, the Court hereby approves the same with the modification that respondent should be admonished to be more circumspect in the performance of her duties to avoid a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future.
ACCORDINGLY, the administrative complaint against Judge Elvira D.C. Panganiban is hereby DISMISSED. Respondent is ADMONISHED to be more circumspect in the performance of her duties.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
