THIRD DIVISION
|
Reynaldo A.
Sinaon, Sr., Chief of Police,
Complainant, - versus - Judge Cesar
M. Dumlao, MTC, Respondent. x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - x OFFICE OF THE COURT
ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, - versus - Judge Cesar M. Dumlao, MTC, San
Mateo, Isabela, Respondent. |
|
A.M. No. MTJ-04-1519 (Formerly OCA I.PI. No. 02-1286-MTJ) A.M. No. MTJ-07-1679 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J., Chairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CHICO-NAZARIO,
NACHURA, and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
CHICO-NAZARIO,
J.:
The instant administrative complaint[1]
was filed by Reynaldo A. Sinaon, Sr., Chief of Police, San Mateo, Isabela
(complainant Sinaon Sr.), against Judge Cesar M. Dumlao (Judge Dumlao),
Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC), San Mateo, Isabela,
charging the latter with Grave Abuse of Authority, Misconduct, Dereliction of
Duty and Ignorance of the Law, relative to Criminal Cases No. 02-06-250 and
02-06-251, both bearing the title, People
of the Philippines v. Romeo Vinoya y
Agustin, pending before said trial court.
On 17 July 2002, complainant Sinaon
Sr. instituted complaints against Romeo Vinoya y Agustin (Vinoya) for Violation
of Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended by Republic Act No. 8294 entitled,
“People of the Philippines v. Romeo
Vinuya y Agustin,” and Violation of the COMELEC Gun Ban before the MTC of
San Mateo, Isabela, which were eventually docketed as Criminal Cases No. 02-06-250
to 251, respectively. Complainant Sinaon
Sr. believed that since the accused Vinoya was lawfully arrested without
warrant by elements of the Philippine National Police (PNP) on
In his supplemental complaint[2]
dated 30 July 2002, complainant Sinaon, Sr. further alleged that Judge Dumlao,
despite having issued his Joint Resolution dated 19 June 2002 dismissing the
criminal complaints against Vinoya, failed to comply with Section 5, Rule 112
of the Rules on Criminal Procedure for he did not perform his ministerial duty
to transmit the records of the cases to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor
within ten days after termination of the preliminary investigation. Thus, complainant Sinaon Sr. prayed for the
grant of the same relief as in his original complaint.
On
On
On
On
In consideration of the fact that
Judge Dumlao had just recently assumed office after serving his six-month
suspension relative to A.M. MTJ-04-1556 (02-1286-MTJ), the Court
resolved on 5 July 2006,[5]
to give him one last chance to submit his comment on complainant Sinaon, Sr.’s
complaint and supplemental complaint within fifteen days from notice hereof;
otherwise the case shall be considered submitted for resolution.
Despite
the numerous directives and opportunities given to him by the Court, Judge
Dumlao still failed to file his comment.
Thus, on
After weighing complainant Sinaon, Sr.’s
evidences and arguments, the OCA submitted its report,[7]
recommending the dismissal of the charges of Grave Abuse of Authority,
Misconduct, Dereliction of Duty and Ignorance of the Law against Judge Dumlao,
but then also recommending the imposition upon him of suspension for six months
for failure to comply with the directives of the court to file his
comment. The fallo of the OCA report thus reads:
Premises considered it is respectfully recommended that;
(a) The instant charge against respondent be DISMISSED for lack of merit; and
(b)
Judge Cesar M. Dumlao be SUSPENDED for six (6)
months from the service without pay and WARNED for the last time that a
repetition of the same offense shall be dealt with more severely.[8]
The OCA justified the dismissal of the complaint by Judge Dumlao in this wise:
Pertinent portions of the assailed order of the respondent judge provides;
x x x x
As
narrated, the incident initially happened at a quarry site at Barangay Sinamar
Norte,
The suspect was not actually apprehended in the possession of a firearm an armalite, at the place he first threatened the two employees. He was actually apprehended at a certain place admitted to be within the territorial jurisdiction of Barangay Calupaso, Alfonso, Lista, Ifugao. This fact is confirmed by a Barangay Kagawad of the place, Dominador S. Bonalos, who proceeded to the place to verify.
As
it appears, this Court has no authority to proceed further with the
investigation for lack of jurisdiction, the place of commission of the offenses
charged being with the
WHEREFORE, for lack of jurisdiction, the charges are hereby ordered dismissed, without prejudice to the filing of the charges in the proper jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the accused is hereby ordered released from further detention.
So ORDERED.
Signed CESAR M. DUMLAO
Municipal Trial Judge
x x x x
Pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court provide:
Rule 112
Preliminary Investigation
Sec. 2 of Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Court among others provide
“(b) Judges of the Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.
Their authority to conduct
preliminary investigations shall include all crimes cognizable by the proper
court in their respective territorial jurisdictions. (2a)
Sec. 3 Procedure – The preliminary investigation shall be conducted in the following manner:
“(b)
Within ten (10) days after the filing of the complaint, the
investigating officer shall either dismiss it if he finds no ground to continue
with the investigation.
x x x x
“Their authority to conduct preliminary investigation shall include all crimes cognizable by the proper court in their respective territorial jurisdiction.”
x x x x
(b) Section 3
“Within ten (10) days after filing of the complaint, the investigating officer shall either dismiss the same if he finds no ground to continue with the inquiry or issue a subpoena etc.”
x x x x
The act of respondent judge in dismissing the complaint is in accordance with the above-mentioned provisions. If respondent made a mistake in his determination that the allege offense was committed outside or beyond his jurisdiction, then however erroneous this may seem to complainant, such is not subject to disciplinary action in the absence of fraud, dishonesty or corruption.
Complainant’s supplemental complaint, except for his mere allegations also cannot prosper, in the absence of additional evidence adduced or submitted. The alleged failure to transmit the records to the office of the Provincial Prosecutor is not supported by any document or sworn statement.
In the administrative proceedings, the complainant bears the onus of establishing evidence, the averments of his complainant. Notatus dignum is the presumption of regularity in the performance of a judge’s functions (A.M. No. RTJ-03-1750, 14 January 2005) hence, bias, prejudice and even undue interest cannot be presumed specially if weighed against a judge’s sacred obligation under oath of office to administer justice without respect to any person and do equal right to the poor and to the rich (Pimentel vs. Salonga 21 SCRA 161).
3.
The same may be said of the allegation that the respondent judge may have extended undue favor and benefit to the accused when he dismissed the case.
In a long line of cases decided by this Court, it was held that bare allegations of bias are not enough in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that the judge will undertake his noble role to dispense justice according to law and evidence and without fear or favor. In Sinnott v. Barte (A.M. No. RTJ-99-1453, 14 December December 2001, 372 SCRA 282) it was further held, mere suspicion that a judge is partial to one of the parties is not enough. There should be clear and convincing evidence to prove the charge of bias and partiality. Extrinsic evidence is required to establish bias, bad faith, malice or corrupt purpose, in addition to the palpable error that may be inferred from the decision or order itself. Although the decision may seem so erroneous as to raise doubts concerning a judge’s integrity, absent extrinsic evidence, the decision itself would be insufficient to establish a case against the judge.
The rule is that disciplinary proceedings do not complement supplement, or substitute judicial remedies. Any inquiry to the administrative liability of a judge maybe resorted to only after the available remedies have been exhausted and decided with finality. There is nothing on record to suggest that complainant availed of such remedy before filing the complaint against respondent (A.M. No. RTJ-02-1717, 28 May__).[9]
On
18 July 2007, upon recommendation of the OCA, the Court resolved to (1) dismiss
the charges against Judge Cesar M. Dumlao for lack of merit; (2) re-docket the
case as a regular administrative complaint for the failure of Judge Dumlao to
comment on the matter despite notice; and (3) require Judge Dumlao to manifest
whether he was willing to submit the case for decision on the basis of the
pleadings/records already filed and submitted, within ten (10) days from
notice.
Again,
respondent Judge Dumlao did not file the required manifestation despite notice
sent to and received by him.
Resultantly,
the Court considered as waived the right of Judge Dumlao to file his
manifestation and submitted the case for decision based on the pleadings filed.
The Court agrees with the OCA that Judge Dumlao must be held
administratively liable for his unjustified failure to comment on the administrative
complaint filed against him, except for the recommended penalty.
The Office of the Judge requires him
to obey all the lawful orders of his superiors.[10]
It appears that Judge Dumlao ignored
and continued to ignore this Court’s directive requiring him to file his
comment on complainant Sinaon, Sr.’s administrative complaint. He had been afforded more than ample time
within which to file the required pleading.
As noted earlier, several Resolutions had been issued by the OCA and
this Court requiring Judge Dumlao to comment on the complaint against him. The first Resolution was issued as early as
Judge Dumlao had been given more than
ample time to abide with the orders of this Court, yet he persistently failed
to do so. Judge Dumlao neither offered any reason nor raised any defense for
his failure to comply with the mandates of this Court. Nothing was heard from Judge Dumlao as to
what had prevented him from complying with the Court’s directives. Such insolence should not go unpunished.
It should be borne in mind that a
resolution of the Supreme Court requiring comment on an administrative
complaint against officials and employees of the judiciary should not be
construed as a mere request from the Court, nor should it be complied with
partially, inadequately or selectively.[11]
It should be complied with promptly and
completely. Such failure to comply
accordingly betrays not only a recalcitrant streak in character, but also
disrespect for the Court’s lawful order and directive.[12] Furthermore, this contumacious conduct of
refusing to abide by the lawful directives issued by the Court has, likewise,
been considered as an utter lack of interest to remain with, if not contempt
of, the system.[13]
Thus, this Court in Parane v. Reloza[14]
ruled that:
This
contumacious conduct and his disregard of the Court’s mandate should merit no
further compassion. Respondent’s
continued refusal to abide by lawful directives issued by this Court can mean
no less than his own utter lack of interest to remain with, if not his contempt
of, the system to which he has all along pretended to belong.
Under Rule
140 of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC dated 11 September
2001, violation of Supreme Court rules, directives and circulars
is categorized as less serious charge with the following sanctions: (a)
suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one
nor more than three months; or (b) a fine of more than P10,000.00 but
not exceeding P20,000.00.
Clearly,
the six-month suspension recommended by the OCA for Judge Dumlao’s failure to
file the required comment is beyond the penalties provided for such a
violation. In determining the
appropriate penalty to be imposed upon Judge Dumlao for this instance, the
Court takes into consideration his previous conduct.
The
Court notes that the propensity of Judge Dumlao to disregard, if not challenge,
the authority of this Court was already reflected in another administrative
matter. In MTJ-04-1556, [15]
Judge Dumlao was suspended for six (6) months for Gross Ignorance of the Law and Grave Abuse of
Authority, and was fined P10,000.00 for his obstinate failure to file
his comment therein.
It also came to the attention of this
Court that Judge Dumlao was previously fined the amount of P5,000.00 in MTJ-01-1339[16]
for Abuse of Authority, and P10,000.00 in MTJ-01-1350[17]
for Gross Negligence and Gross Ignorance.
The
Court, thus, deems it apt to suspend Judge Dumlao for two (2) months for his
repeated disregard of the Court’s lawful directives.
WHEREFORE,
respondent Judge Cesar M. Dumlao is hereby SUSPENDED for two (2) months without
pay for his obstinate failure to file comment on the complaint filed against
him despite proper notice, with a warning that a repetition of the same or
similar act will be dealt with more
severely.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIOAssociate Justice |
WE
CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
RUBEN T. REYES
Associate
Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 1-4.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10] Davila v. Generoso, 391 Phil. 466, 471
(2000).
[11] Josep v. Abarquez, 330 Phil. 352, 359
(1996).
[12] Tugot v. Judge Coliflores, 467 Phil. 391, 402-403 (2004).
[13]
Parane v. Reloza, A.M. No. MTJ-92-718,
[14]
[15]
Lim v. Judge Dumlao, A.M. No. MTJ-04-1556,
[16] Morales, Jr. v. Judge Dumlao, 427 Phil. 56 (2002).
[17] Pascual v. Judge Dumlao, 414 Phil. 1 (2001).