OCA-IPI No. 05-1721-MTJ. February 1, 2006]
ERIC COMISO vs.
JUDGE FRANCISCO A. ANTE, JR., ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN
CITIES, VIGAN CITY,
ILOCOS SUR
Third Division
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this
Court dated FEB. 1, 2006
OCA-IPI No. 05-1721-MTJ (Eric
Comiso vs. Judge Francisco A. Ante, Jr., Acting
Presiding Judge, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Vigan City, Ilocos Sur
)
Under consideration is the administrative complaint dated 6 April
2005 filed by Eric C. Comiso
("complainant") against Judge Francisco Ante, Jr., ("respondent")
charging the latter with grave misconduct in relation to certain acts done in
his capacity as Acting Judge of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, First
Judicial Region, Vigan City, Ilocos Sur ("MTCC Vigan").
On 23 January 2003,
police officers went to MTCC Vigan to file a criminal complaint for illegal
possession of firearms and ammunition against herein complainant. Respondent verified both the complaint
executed by Police Chief Inspector Rolando Osias
("Osias") and the supporting
joint-affidavits attached thereto and directed that the case be docketed.
[1]
cralaw However, it is clear from the complaint that
the crime subject thereof was alleged to have been committed in Barangay San
Antonio, Municipality of Narvacan, over which another court
has jurisdiction. On 27 January 2003, respondent issued
two Orders,
[2]
cralaw both
dismissing the case on the ground of improper venue, one with the additional
directive to forward the records to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor.
In an Affidavit-Complaint
[3]
cralaw
dated 6 April 2005, complainant
filed the instant case alleging that respondent verified the criminal complaint
and directed that it be docketed despite knowledge that MTCC Vigan had no
jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case. It is claimed that respondent ordered the court
stenographer instead of the Acting Clerk of Court to docket the case since the
latter would have known that the offense was not cognizable by MTCC Vigan. Complainant points out that the records of the
criminal case were forwarded to the Office of the Provincial. Prosecutor only after Osias
had withdrawn the firearms from the Philippine National Police Regional Crime
Laboratory. He asserts that respondent
took the actions he took with a view to giving Osias
sufficient time and leverage to harass and intimidate him and to dispose of the
firearms seized for their personal benefit. Based on the foregoing, complainant charges respondent
with grave misconduct consisting of violations of Rule 1.01, Canon 1, Rule
2.01, Canon 2, and Rule 3.09, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
[4]
cralaw
In his Comment
[5]
cralaw
dated 21 June 2005,
respondent admits having erred in taking cognizance of the criminal complaint
by relying on its caption, which reads, "Municipal Trial Court,
Vigan
City
, Ilocos Sur,"
and on the belief that Osias was experienced in the
filing of cases with the proper courts. Respondent
explained that he ordered the stenographer to docket the complaint because the
Acting Clerk of Court had left the office earlier on. He further asserted that being merely the Acting
Judge of MTCC Vigan, he did not report for work to said office the following
day (Friday); however, he realized his mistake on the next working day, 27 January 2003 (Monday), and correspondingly
issued the orders of dismissal. Moreover,
the firearms are already in the custody of the RTC, Branch 23, Candon, Ilocos Sur, where there is a pending case against complainant.
In its Report
[6]
cralaw
dated 07 December 2005, the
Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended that the case be dismissed
for lack of merit with the caveat to respondent to be more circumspect in the
performance of his duties. The OCA noted
that there is nothing on record to support the claim of a malicious conspiracy
to harass complainant or any interest that respondent may have on the subject
firearms. It indicated that respondent's
error in initially taking cognizance of the criminal case is not enough to
warrant sanction, especially since respondent detected his own mistake and
rectified it immediately, obviating any appreciable prejudice to complainant.
This Court finds the recommendation of the OCA to be in
accordance with law and the facts of the case. In administrative proceedings, the complainant
has the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, the allegations in the
complaint.
[7]
cralaw In the instant case, complainant failed to
substantiate his claims of serious misconduct.
WHEREFORE, the recommendation of the Office of the Court
Administrator is APPROVED. The
administrative complaint is DISMISSED for lack of merit. Judge Francisco Ante, Jr. is ADVISED to be
more circumspect in the performance of his duty. The case is declared CLOSED and TERMINATED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
