SECOND DIVISION
[A.M. No. 01-6-192-MCTC. October 5, 2001]
REQUEST TO DESIGNATE ANOTHER JUDGE TO TRY AND DECIDE CRIMINAL CASE NO. 3713 (SF-99) PENDING BEFORE THE MCTC, SAN FABIAN-SAN JACINTO, PANGASINAN
D E C I S I O N
MENDOZA, J.:
This refers to a letter of Aurora
Arabos seeking the designation of another judge to try and decide a criminal
case filed by her on the ground that the regular judge, Judge Aniceto L.
Madronio, Sr., is biased. In the
alternative, complainant seeks the transfer of venue of her case.
The facts are as follows:
Aurora Arabos, a barangay kagawad,
is the complainant in a case for grave oral defamation before the Municipal
Circuit Trial Court of San Fabian-San Jacinto, Pangasinan presided over by
Judge Aniceto L. Madronio, Sr. The
case, docketed as Criminal Case No. 3713 (SF-99), was set for pre-trial on
October 1, 1999, at 2:00 p.m. On the
said date, the pre-trial was terminated and the case was set for hearing. It appears, however, that Judge Madronio,
Sr. again set the case for pre-trial on May 5, 2000, after the prosecution had
presented two witnesses. However, when
the date arrived for the pre-trial, only the complainant and the accused
appeared. Seeing that the counsels for
both parties failed to attend the scheduled pre-trial, Judge Madronio, Sr.
tried to persuade complainant either to settle the case against the accused or
to withdraw it. When he failed to do
so, Judge Madronio, Sr. reset the pre-trial to June 2, 2000.
Complainant filed a motion for
Judge Madronio, Sr. to inhibit himself from the case on the ground that the
judge had shown partiality towards the accused. Her motion for inhibition and for suspension of the proceedings
was denied by Judge Madronio, Sr. in an order, dated September 8, 2000. Instead, the judge set the hearing of the
case on September 22, 2000 at 1:30 p.m.
Judge Madronio, Sr. claimed that
he merely wanted the parties to settle their case amicably because both
belonged to the barangay council of Barangay Lekep, San Fabian,
Pangasinan. He denied that he asked
complainant to withdraw her case against the accused. Judge Madronio, Sr. stated that he told the accused, Carlos T.
Villanueva, after that conference to see complainant either in her house or in
the barangay council and try to settle with her. Judge Madronio, Sr. explained that he thought it was his duty, as
a former prosecutor and now Judge of the MCTC, to try to bring the parties to
an amicable settlement for the sake of peace and harmony in the community. Anent his order, dated September 8, 2000,
denying complainant’s motion for inhibition and suspension of the proceedings
of the case, Judge Madronio, Sr. maintained that he had not shown bias towards
the accused and requested that he be allowed to hear the case in order to prove
his impartiality.
This case was referred to the
Office of the Court Administrator which, in its report dated June 14, 2001,
recommended that the request of Kagawad Aurora Arabos for the designation of a
new judge to replace Judge Madronio, Sr. or to transfer the venue of the action
be denied on the ground that under Circular 7, dated November 10, 1980, “all
orders arising from motions for inhibition should not be treated as
administrative in character but should be considered as judicial. The party who alleges to be aggrieved may
apply for the appropriate legal remedy.
In the absence of such proceeding, the order either for or against
inhibition stands.”
This recommendation is well taken.
Indeed, all orders arising from
motions for inhibition cannot be treated as administrative matters. As stated in paragraph 7 of Administrative
Circular No. 1, dated January 28, 1988, “inhibitions and disqualifications are
judicial actions which do not require prior administrative approval. Administrative intervention is necessary
only when the inhibition is by a judge of a single sala court, and the case has
to be transferred to another judge of another station.”
As held in Flores v. Abesamis,[1] disciplinary proceedings and criminal actions against
judges are not complementary or suppletory of, nor a substitute for, judicial
remedies which a party may avail of under the Rules of Court. It is only after the available judicial
remedies have been exhausted and the appellate tribunals have ruled with
finality that an inquiry into the criminal, civil, or administrative liability
of a judge may be conducted. Complainant’s remedy, therefore, is to file an
appropriate judicial proceeding against the order of Judge Madronio, Sr.
In this case, although the
Municipal Circuit Trial Court of San Fabian-San Jacinto, Pangasinan is a single
sala court, administrative intervention is not warranted as Judge Madronio, Sr.
has not inhibited himself and there is consequently no want for a judge to try
Criminal Case No. 3713 (SF-99). The
administrative supervision by this Court is not required to designate a new
judge from another station to try and decide the subject criminal case. Neither would a transfer of venue of the
case be proper.
The Office of the Court
Administrator recommends that Judge Madronio, Sr. be reprimanded for allegedly
failing to comply with Circular No. 38-98 and Rules 118 and 119 of the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure of 2000 with regard to the procedure for pre-trial
and trial and to observe Rule 2.01, Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct as
he apparently exhibited partiality towards the accused in the subject criminal
case. However, since as already stated,
the question of inhibition of Judge Madronio, Sr. should be determined in an
appropriate judicial proceeding, any administrative sanction against Judge
Madronio, Sr. must await the outcome of the said judicial proceeding.
WHEREFORE, the instant case is DISMISSED without prejudice to
the filing of the appropriate judicial remedy against the order of Judge
Aniceto L. Madronio, Sr.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, (Chairman), Quisumbing, Buena, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.