A.M. No. 1840-MJ - JUNE 1981 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE A.M. No. 1840-MJJune 11, 1981 Victoriano Fajota vs. Cesar Balonso G.R. Nos. L-45280-81June 11, 1981 People of the Philippines vs. Felix Garcia G.R. No. L-48796June 11, 1981 People of the Philippines vs. Diego C. Opero G.R. No. L-49353June 11, 1981 The Overseas Bank of Manila vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-51254June 11, 1981 Marcopper Mining Corp. vs. Blas Ople G.R. No. L-35990June 17, 1981 Aboitiz & Co., Inc. vs. Cotabato Bus Co., Inc. G.R. Nos. L-48502-03June 17, 1981 People of the Philippines vs. Procopio O. Bermoy G.R. No. L-53470June 26, 1981 People of the Philippines vs. Ponciano Roque G.R. No. L-55938June 26, 1981 Jory F. Faderanga, et al. vs. Commission on Elections A.M. No. P-2448June 29, 1981 Amante Purisima vs. Rogelio Abello G.R. No. L-24780June 29, 1981 People of the Philippines vs. Raymundo Araja G.R. No. L-33211June 29, 1981 People of the Philippines vs. Ernesto F. Puno G.R. No. L-43548June 29, 1981 Leonila S. Perez vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. L-49379June 29, 1981 Teodora A. Aritao, et al. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-50631June 29, 1981 People of the Philippines vs. Salvador Peruelo G.R. No. L-53793June 29, 1981 Leonor A. Garcia vs. Commission on Elections Separate OpinionsChief Justice Fernando & Justice Teehankee G.R. Nos. L-38101-02June 29, 1981 People of the Phil vs. Isabelo Anggot The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Victoriano Fajota vs. Cesar Balonso People of the Philippines vs. Felix Garcia People of the Philippines vs. Diego C. Opero The Overseas Bank of Manila vs. Court of Appeals Marcopper Mining Corp. vs. Blas Ople Aboitiz & Co., Inc. vs. Cotabato Bus Co., Inc. People of the Philippines vs. Procopio O. Bermoy People of the Philippines vs. Ponciano Roque Jory F. Faderanga, et al. vs. Commission on Elections Amante Purisima vs. Rogelio Abello People of the Philippines vs. Raymundo Araja People of the Philippines vs. Ernesto F. Puno Leonila S. Perez vs. People of the Philippines Teodora A. Aritao, et al. vs. Court of Appeals People of the Philippines vs. Salvador Peruelo Leonor A. Garcia vs. Commission on Elections Separate OpinionsChief Justice Fernando & Justice Teehankee People of the Phil vs. Isabelo Anggot The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Manila

EN BANC

A.M. No. 1840-MJ June 11, 1981

VICTORIANO FAJOTA,complainant,
vs.
HON. CESAR BALONSO Acting Municipal Judge of Palauig, Zambales,respondent.

R E S O L U T I O N

DE CASTRO,J.:

In a verified complaint dated February 21, 1978, complaint charges respondent Judge with gross ignorance of the law. It is alleged in said complaint that respondent, while acting as Municipal Judge of Palauig, Zambales, accepted a criminal complaint for libel filed by one Jose J. Gutierrez against herein complainant, who was deprived of his liberty for more than ten (10) hours when respondent ordered his arrest; that the libel suit was based on the letter of complainant in his capacity as "Kagawad Ng Sanggunian Bayan," to the Board of Directors of Zambales Electric Cooperative, Inc. (ZAMECO) regarding the employment in the Cooperative of two active politicians who have pending criminal cases in court; that complainant was only released after posting a real estate bond on June 27, 1977; that respondent ordered his arraignment and the second stage of preliminary investigation on August 5, 1977; that after arraignment, the records were remanded to the Court of First Instance of Zambales, Branch II, Iba; that the actuations of respondent are not in accordance with the provisions of Article 3601of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 4363, and in utter disregard of Circular No. 27 dated April 5, 1965 of the Department [now Ministry] of Justice reminding judges of inferior courts of said amendment.

Answering the complaint, respondent denied the charge regarding the posting of bail by complainant and contended that "as far as the bailbond is concerned, it was prepared and passed upon by the Municipal Court of Castillejos, Zambales, and sent by mail to respondent"; that no preliminary investigation (second stage ' ) was conducted since herein complainant waived the same; that he does not intend to evade any responsibility, and if he had made a mistake in the application of the law, it was because of the ruling enunciated in the case ofMercader vs. Hon. Valila(1 SCRA 503-505) wherein the Court held that Republic Act No. 1289, approved on June 15, 1955, amending Art. 360 of the Revised Penal Code, did not deprive the justices of the peace of their power to conduct preliminary investigation; and that said ruling made respondent overlook the later amendment of Art. 360 by Republic Act 4363 on June 19,1965.

Deputy Court Administrator Romeo D. Mendoza in his Memorandum dated February 24, 1981 pointed out that respondent acted on the complaint for libel contrary to the provisions of Republic Act 4363 since respondent is a Municipal Judge of neither a city nor of a capital of the province; that the claim that he overlooked the amendment introduced by RA 4363 is not a valid excuse for ignorance of the plain categorical provision of the said law, and therefore, he acted without jurisdiction; and in view thereof he recommended the suspension of respondent from office for a period of six (6) months without pay.

We agree with the aforesaid findings and conclusion. It appears undisputed that respondent violated the provision of RA 4363 amending Art. 360 of the Revised Penal Code when he took cognizance of the libel case filed before his court. His explanation for his having overlooked the latest amendment to Art. 360 is not a valid excuse for ignorance of the provision of said law. It is more so after this Court, in the case ofQuizon vs. Baltazar2a 1975 decision, held, speaking through then Justice Roberto Concepcion:

The provisions of Act No. 4363 amending Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code are so clear and unmistakable that there can be no room for doubt or even interpretation.'In taking cognizance of the libel case, respondent was clearly without jurisdiction. The kindest thing we can say of him is that he is ignorant of the plain and categorical provisions of law. Moreover, as early as April 5, 1967 the Department of Justice circularized all city judges and municipal judges relative to the provisions of Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. No. 4363 as follows:

It should be noted from these provisions that a complaint or information for libel may be filed only in the Court of First Instance. The preliminary investigation of the criminal case may, however, be conducted by the city court of the city or the municipal court of the capital of the province where the case is filed.

There can therefore be no excuse for respondent's error of law.

Respondent judge has exhibited a deplorable lack of assuiduity in the effort, which all lawyers specially those dispensing justice, must exert to keep themselves abreast with the growth of the law and jurisprudence. It is thus worthwhile to quote as a stern reminder to him what now Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando said in his concurring opinion in the above-cited case the following:

... It is a truism that the learning process in law does not stop upon graduation from college and admission to the bar. There should be, on the contrary, more sustained intellectual effort on the part of the members of the legal profession.ℒαwρhi৷Certainly, judges are not exempt from this obligation. It is even more incumbent on them as they are thought of as the "oracles of the law." There is likely then to be a disillusionment in the judicial process if, as did happen here, an occupant of the bench was found to be woefully lacking in legal knowledge. Nor is this the only deplorable aspect of this unfortunate occurrence. There is an even more imperative need for proficiency in the law under a regime of martial rule. The efforts for improvement in the mode of administering the government in all its manifold complexity would come to naught if our people can harbor the suspicion that judges do not even know what the law is.

WHEREFORE,premises considered, respondent judge is hereby suspended from office for a period of six (6) months without pay, with warning that a repetition of similar act shall be administratively dealt with more severely. Let a copy of this resolution be attached to respondent's personal record.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, CJ., Teehankee, Barredo, Makasiar, Aquino, Concepcion Jr., Fernandez, Guerrera Abad Santos and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.

Footnotes