A.M. No. R-368-MTJ - SEPTEMBER 1987 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE A.M. No. R-368-MTJSeptember 30, 1987Benjamin C. Uy vs. Renato S. Mercado A.M. No. R-375- MTJSeptember 30, 1987Court Administrator vs. Antonio P. Paredes G.R. No. L-28353September 30, 1987Solano Laganapan vs. Elpidio Asedillo G.R. No. L-30212September 30, 1987Bienvenido Gelisan vs. Benito Alday G.R. No. L-33261September 30, 1987Liwalug Amerol vs. Molok Bagumbaran G.R. No. L-39300September 30, 1987People of the Philippines vs. Bernido Detuya, et al. G.R. No. L-44222September 30, 1987Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-45663September 30, 1987Alfonso Buiser vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-48276September 30, 1987Pedro A. Danao vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-48685September 30, 1987Lorenzo Sumulong vs. Buenaventura Guerrero G.R. No. L-56948September 30, 1987Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-57844September 30, 1987Stella Zablan vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-69253September 30, 1987People of the Philippines vs. Rosalia B. Francia G.R. No. L-69997September 30, 1987Ungay Malobago Mines, Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. G.R. No. L-71092September 30, 1987People of the Philippines vs. Anacleto Q. Olvis G.R. No. L-73889September 30, 1987Florencio Balatero, et al. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. G.R. No. L-75209September 30, 1987Nestle Philippines, Inc. vs. Augusto S. Sanchez, et al. G.R. No. L-75238September 30, 1987Malayan Integrated Industries Corporation vs. Rafael T. Mendoza, et al. G.R. No. L-76647September 30, 1987Cecilio J. Amorsolo vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. L-77679September 30, 1987Vicente Vergara vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 73558September 29, 1987Municipality of Obando, Province of Bulacan vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al. G.R. No. L-76989September 29, 1987Manila Mandarin Employees Union vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. L-37928-29September 29, 1987People of the Philippines vs. Rogaciano Taduyo G.R. No. L-38972September 28, 1987Paz Garcia, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-40575September 28, 1987Felimon C. Marquez, et al. vs. Gavino R. Alejo, et al. G.R. No. L-46953September 28, 1987Jose N. Mayuga vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-67451September 28, 1987Realty Sales Ent., Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. L-50310September 25, 1987Ricardo Roxas vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-62300September 25, 1987Angelita Tanedo vs. Employees Compensation Commission, et al. G.R. No. L-36528September 24, 1987People of the Philippines vs. City Court of Manila, Branch VI, et al. G.R. No. L-48777September 24, 1987Justo M. Ongkiko vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-52007September 24, 1987Jovencio Lagunzad vs. Court of Appeals, et Al G.R. No. L-61418September 24, 1987Korean Airlines Company, Ltd. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-65894September 24, 1987Municipal Government of Coron, Palawan vs. Jose Carino, et al. G.R. No. L-65917September 24, 1987Manuel Alba vs. Francisco A. Perez G.R. No. L-70660September 24, 1987Eulalio Galanida vs. Employees' Compensation Commission G.R. No. L-71228September 24, 1987Erlinda P. Meram vs. Filipina V. Edralin G.R. No. L-71313September 24, 1987Roderico M. Deang vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. L-73884September 24, 1987Romeo Lipana vs. Development Bank of Rizal G.R. No. L-74240September 24, 1987People of the Philippines vs. David B. Sunga G.R. No. L-75884September 24, 1987Julita Go Ong vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-49761September 21, 1987People of the Philippines vs. Esperidion Alegarbes, Jr. G.R. No. L-55076September 21, 1987Matilde S. Palicte vs. Jose O. Ramolete, et al. G.R. No. L-61311September 21, 1987Felicidad Villanueva vs. Mariano Castañeda, Jr. G.R. No. L-62577September 21, 1987Estelita Rosales vs. CFI of Lanao Del Norte, Branch III, et al. G.R. Nos. L-75217-18September 21, 1987Victor Que vs. People of the Philippines, et al. G.R. No. L-76721September 21, 1987Lydia Santos vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. L-51592September 18, 1987Pacific Products/Fortuna Employees vs. Pacific Products, Inc., G.R. No. L-61094September 18, 1987Ma. Luisa Vda. De Donato vs. Court of Appeals A.M. No. R-249-RTJSeptember 17, 1987Ceferino Inciong vs. Leticia S. Mariano De Guia A.M. No. R-592-RTJSeptember 17, 1987Juanito L. Haw Tay vs. Eduardo Singayao A.M. No. R-494-PSeptember 17, 1987Vicente P. Sibulo vs. Ernesto Ramirez G.R. No. L-71537September 17, 1987Emilio De La Paz, Jr. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. L-75860September 17, 1987Ang Ping vs. Regional Trial Court of Manila G.R. No. L-78529September 17, 1987BF Homes, Incorporated vs. National Water Resources Council A.M. No. P-2486September 15, 1987Court Administrator vs. Sancho G. Gapasin A.M. No. R-190-PSeptember 15, 1987James B. Pajares vs. Elizer Alipante G.R. No. L-30670September 15, 1987Pastor Tanchoco vs. Florendo P. Aquino G.R. No. L-40858September 15, 1987Federico Serfino, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-69619September 15, 1987People of the Philippines vs. Salvador Fernandez, et al. G.R. No. L-71535September 15, 1987Helena Z. T. Benitez vs. Intermediate Appellate Court G.R. No. L-75501September 15, 1987Atlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation vs. Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr. G.R. No. L-48834September 14, 1987People of the Philippines vs. Abelardo M. Marquez G.R. No. L-49539September 14, 1987Benjamin Dihiansan, et al. vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-57926September 14, 1987Rogelio Zuñiga vs. J. Alfin S. Vicencio G.R. Nos. L-61700-03September 14, 1987Princesita Santero, et al. vs. Court of First Instance of Cavite, et al. G.R. No. L-74433September 14, 1987People of the Philippines vs. Francisco Abarca G.R. No. L-46644September 11, 1987Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Island Garment Manufacturing Corporation G.R. No. L-47018September 11, 1987Mutual Security Insurance Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-57461September 11, 1987Director of Lands vs. Manila Electric Company, et al. G.R. No. L-59880September 11, 1987George Arguelles vs. Romeo A. Young G.R. No. L-28683September 4, 1987Budget Investment & Financing, Inc. vs. Glicerio Mangoma, et al. G.R. No. L-67825September 4, 1987Elias C. Garcia vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. L-73441September 4, 1987Naess Shipping Philippines, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Benjamin C. Uy vs. Renato S. MercadoCourt Administrator vs. Antonio P. ParedesSolano Laganapan vs. Elpidio AsedilloBienvenido Gelisan vs. Benito AldayLiwalug Amerol vs. Molok BagumbaranPeople of the Philippines vs. Bernido Detuya, et al.Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Alfonso Buiser vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Pedro A. Danao vs. Court of AppealsLorenzo Sumulong vs. Buenaventura GuerreroRepublic of the Philippines vs. Court of AppealsStella Zablan vs. Court of Appeals, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Rosalia B. FranciaUngay Malobago Mines, Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Anacleto Q. OlvisFlorencio Balatero, et al. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al.Nestle Philippines, Inc. vs. Augusto S. Sanchez, et al.Malayan Integrated Industries Corporation vs. Rafael T. Mendoza, et al.Cecilio J. Amorsolo vs. People of the PhilippinesVicente Vergara vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Municipality of Obando, Province of Bulacan vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al.Manila Mandarin Employees Union vs. National Labor Relations CommissionPeople of the Philippines vs. Rogaciano TaduyoPaz Garcia, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Felimon C. Marquez, et al. vs. Gavino R. Alejo, et al.Jose N. Mayuga vs. Court of AppealsRealty Sales Ent., Inc. vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtRicardo Roxas vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Angelita Tanedo vs. Employees Compensation Commission, et al.People of the Philippines vs. City Court of Manila, Branch VI, et al.Justo M. Ongkiko vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al.Jovencio Lagunzad vs. Court of Appeals, et AlKorean Airlines Company, Ltd. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Municipal Government of Coron, Palawan vs. Jose Carino, et al.Manuel Alba vs. Francisco A. PerezEulalio Galanida vs. Employees' Compensation CommissionErlinda P. Meram vs. Filipina V. EdralinRoderico M. Deang vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtRomeo Lipana vs. Development Bank of RizalPeople of the Philippines vs. David B. SungaJulita Go Ong vs. Court of Appeals, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Esperidion Alegarbes, Jr.Matilde S. Palicte vs. Jose O. Ramolete, et al.Felicidad Villanueva vs. Mariano Castañeda, Jr.Estelita Rosales vs. CFI of Lanao Del Norte, Branch III, et al.Victor Que vs. People of the Philippines, et al.Lydia Santos vs. National Labor Relations CommissionPacific Products/Fortuna Employees vs. Pacific Products, Inc.,Ma. Luisa Vda. De Donato vs. Court of AppealsCeferino Inciong vs. Leticia S. Mariano De GuiaJuanito L. Haw Tay vs. Eduardo SingayaoVicente P. Sibulo vs. Ernesto RamirezEmilio De La Paz, Jr. vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtAng Ping vs. Regional Trial Court of ManilaBF Homes, Incorporated vs. National Water Resources CouncilCourt Administrator vs. Sancho G. GapasinJames B. Pajares vs. Elizer AlipantePastor Tanchoco vs. Florendo P. AquinoFederico Serfino, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Salvador Fernandez, et al.Helena Z. T. Benitez vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtAtlas Consolidated Mining and Development Corporation vs. Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr.People of the Philippines vs. Abelardo M. MarquezBenjamin Dihiansan, et al. vs. Court of AppealsRogelio Zuñiga vs. J. Alfin S. VicencioPrincesita Santero, et al. vs. Court of First Instance of Cavite, et al.People of the Philippines vs. Francisco AbarcaCommissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Island Garment Manufacturing CorporationMutual Security Insurance Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, et al.Director of Lands vs. Manila Electric Company, et al.George Arguelles vs. Romeo A. YoungBudget Investment & Financing, Inc. vs. Glicerio Mangoma, et al.Elias C. Garcia vs. National Labor Relations CommissionNaess Shipping Philippines, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations CommissionThe Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Manila
EN BANC
A.M. No. R-368-MTJ September 30, 1987
BENJAMIN C. UYpetitioner,
vs.
HON. RENATO S. MERCADO,respondent.
PER CURIAM:
Municipal Trial Court Judge Renato S. Mercado of Cabarrogue Quirino Province, later Municipal Circuit Trial Court Judge of Aglipay-Sagaday, Quirino Province, is administratively charged with abuse of judicial power and discretion and gross ignorance of the law.
The records show that, on 3 May 1985, former Mambabatas Pambansa (MP) Orlando C. Dulay of Quirino Province filed a complaint for libel with the Municipal Trial Court of Cabarroguis, Quirino Province, presided over by respondent judge, against herein complainant Benjamin C. Uy, Apolonio Batalla and Ulpiano Quizon, based on a publication in theTemponewspaper, dated 28, April 1985, implicating said former MP Orlando C. Dulay, along with several others, who were charged before the Provincial Fiscal of Cavite with the crime of robbery in band.
The records further show that respondent judge conducted the preliminary investigation on former MP Orlando C. Dulay, as complainant on 3 May 1985, and issued the warrant for the arrest of the accused in the libel case on the same day, without any evidence or proof that there was immediate necessity of placing the accused under custody of the court and without proof or evidence to warrant a conclusion that the accused may frustrate the ends of justice by their non-appearance in the trial, as mandated by Rule 112, Section 6(b) of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. As a result, complainant Benjamin C. Uy, on 14 May 1985, while in the vicinity of the City Hall in Quezon City, was arrested and ordered detained in Cabarroguis, Quirino Province. The issuance of said warrant of arrest caused incalculable damage and suffering to complainant and his family, particularly because of the unusual arrest effected by the military elements under the control and supervision of then MP Orlando C. Dulay.
Complainant alleges that respondent judge gave due course to the complaint of libel despite the fact that, under Rep. Act No. 1289, as amended by Rep. Act No. 4363, the proper jurisdiction and venue of the case is Quezon City, where former MP Orlando C. Dulay held office or in Manila where the allegedly libelous article was printed and first published.
Respondent judge, in his Comment, admits having conducted the preliminary investigation in the libel case. He claims, however, that from the preliminary examination made, along with what he gleaned from the news item, there was reason to believe that there was probable cause for issuance of the warrant of arrest and the court, over which he presided, was of the behalf that the three accused were probably guilty of said libel. Citing the cases of US vs. Ocampo, 18 Phil. 1, andAmarga vs. Abbas,98 Phil. 739, respondent judge case that the judicial determination of probable cause is final and conclusive and that whether probable cause exists or not is discretionary for the court. He asks for the dismissal of the administrative complaint.
Under Sec. 37 of Batas Pambansa No. 129, judges of Metropolitan Trial Courts, except those in the National Capital Region, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts have authority to conduct preliminary investigation of crimes alleged to have been committed within their respective territorial jurisdictions and cognizable by the Regional Trial Courts. And, Art. 360 of the Revised Penal Code on held, as amended by Rep. Act No. 1289 and further amended by Rep. Act No. 4363, provides that, where one of the offended parties is a public officer, the action shall be filed in the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of the province or city where he holds office at the time of the commission of the offense or of the province or city where the libelous article was printed and first published. It is also provided that preliminary investigation of criminal actions for written defamations shall be conducted by the provincial or city fiscal of the province or city, or by the municipal court of the city or capital of the province where such actions may be instituted in accordance with the provisions of the above article. The limitation of choice of venue is clearly intended to minimize or limit the filing of out-of-town libel suits to protect the alleged offender from hardship, inconvenience, and harassment and to protect the interest of the public service where one of the offended parties is a public officer.
When respondent judge, in the libel case filed by MP Dulay, conducted the preliminary investigation on Dulay, he issued the warrant of arrest against the accused on the same day.ℒαwρhi৷While it is mandated by law that preliminary investigations should be simple, speedy and should not drag on for weeks and months, to protect the substantial rights of the accused, and that the investigating judge acts only upon probable cause and reasonable belief in issuing a warrant of arrest, it is equally mandated that preliminary investigations should secure the innocent against hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecution to protect him from public accusation of crime, from the trouble, expense and anxiety of public trial and to protect the State from useless and expensive prosecutions.2
Considering that libel suits are often intended to harass an alleged offender, respondent judge should have satisfied himself not only that probable cause exists, but likewise made certain that venue is properly laid and jurisdiction legally acquired before taking cognizance of the case and issuing the warrant of arrest. This, he did not do. Reference may be made, at this point, to cases where despite the existence of probable cause, the investigating judge does not issue a warrant of arrest when there appears to be no necessity therefor.3
It should be noted that the accused in the held case filed a motion to dismiss, raising the issue of venue and jurisdiction, thus affording respondent Judge an opportunity to rectify his previous stand, but respondent fitted and refused to dismiss the libel suit,4even as it was clear that the court, over which he presided, really had no jurisdiction over the case. With this unjustified action, respondent judge placed his integrity under a heavy cloud, leading the Court to believe that he went "out of his way" to accommodate and favor the then influential and powerful former Governor and later Mambabatas Pambansa of Quirino Province, Orlando C. Dulay. As held by this Court inMontemayor vs. Judge Collado.5
... The conduct and behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with the position of justice, like the courts below, from the presiding judge to the lowest clerk, should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. His conduct, at all times, must not only be character with propriety and above all must be above suspicion. Although every office in the government service is a public trust, no position acts a greater demand on momentarily righteousness and uprightness of an individual than a seat in the judiciary. ...
It appearing that the records of the case sufficiently provide a clear basis for the determination of charges.6The unjustified and irregular acts of respondent judge in the premises constitute serious misconduct or at least, gross ignorance of the law. Ordinarily, the misconduct of the respondent would have warranted his dismissed from the service in view of its gravity. However, this penalty may no longer be imposed because of his automatic separation from the service upon his filing of a certificate of candidacy for the position of Congressman for the province of Quirino in the elections of 11 May 1987. But, his actions cannot be allowed to go unpunished.
WHEREFORE,the Court orders the forfeiture of respondent's accrued retirement benefits as well as leave and other privileges, if any, with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or agency of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations. Respondent is further required to show cause, within ten (10) days from notice hereof, why he should not be disbarred for the misconduct referred to in this resolution.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee, C.J., Yap, Fernan, Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento and Cortes, JJ., concur.
Gancayco, J., is on leave.
Footnotes