Title
Abanado vs. Bayona
Case
A.M. No. MTJ-12-1804
Decision Date
Jul 30, 2012
Judge insisted on a disapproved prosecutor's resolution, leading to contempt proceedings; SC ruled no bad faith, dismissed complaints against both parties.
Font Size:

Case Digest (A.M. No. MTJ-12-1804)

Facts:

  1. Initiation of the Case
    The case originated from Criminal Case No. 09-03-16474, entitled People of the Philippines v. Cresencio Palo, Sr., involving a violation of the Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972. Complainant City Prosecutor Armando P. Abanado filed the Information in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Bacolod City, which was assigned to Branch 7 presided by respondent Judge Abraham A. Bayona.

  2. Order for Additional Evidence
    On April 13, 2009, respondent Judge Bayona issued an order requiring the Office of the City Prosecutor to submit additional evidence, including:

    • A copy of the Memorandum of Preliminary Investigation;
    • The Resolution of Investigating Prosecutor Dennis S. Jarder (Jarder Resolution);
    • A memorandum of the transfer of case assignment from the investigating prosecutor to the City Prosecutor; and
    • Copies of all documents submitted by the complainant and respondents for comparison and authentication.
  3. Prosecutor’s Compliance and Explanation
    On April 29, 2009, the Office of the City Prosecutor submitted the Memorandum of Preliminary Investigation and explained that the Jarder Resolution was no longer part of the records as it had been disapproved by complainant Abanado. The case was initially handled by ACP Jarder, who found no probable cause, but complainant, upon review, found probable cause and filed the Information.

  4. Judge’s Insistence on Jarder Resolution
    Respondent Judge Bayona, in an order dated May 5, 2009, insisted that the Jarder Resolution was necessary for evaluating probable cause and ordered its production, threatening contempt for non-compliance.

  5. Prosecutor’s Refusal and Contempt Proceedings
    On May 11, 2009, the Office of the City Prosecutor reiterated that the Jarder Resolution could not be submitted, citing DOJ guidelines that disapproved resolutions are confidential. Respondent Judge Bayona initiated contempt proceedings against complainant.

  6. Motion for Inhibition and Certiorari
    Complainant filed a motion for inhibition, alleging bias, and a petition for certiorari with a prayer for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to stop the contempt proceedings. The TRO was granted by Judge Pepito B. Gellada of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Bacolod City.

  7. RTC Ruling
    On June 15, 2009, Judge Gellada ruled in favor of complainant, stating that a disapproved resolution no longer forms part of the records and need not be submitted to the court.

  8. Administrative Complaint
    On July 10, 2009, complainant filed an administrative complaint against respondent Judge Bayona, alleging gross ignorance of the law, gross misconduct, and violation of Supreme Court Circular No. 12.

  9. Respondent’s Counter-Complaint
    Respondent Judge Bayona filed a counter-complaint for disbarment against complainant, alleging malicious filing of the administrative complaint, disrespect for judicial authority, and misconduct.

  10. OCA Recommendation
    The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended that the administrative complaint be redocketed as a regular administrative case and that respondent Judge Bayona be reprimanded with a stern warning.

Issue:

  1. Whether respondent Judge Bayona committed gross ignorance of the law, gross misconduct, and violated Supreme Court Circular No. 12 by insisting on the production of the Jarder Resolution.
  2. Whether complainant City Prosecutor Abanado should be disbarred for filing a malicious administrative complaint and for disrespecting judicial authority.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court dismissed both the administrative complaint against respondent Judge Bayona and the counter-complaint for disbarment against complainant City Prosecutor Abanado. The Court emphasized the importance of good faith in judicial and prosecutorial actions and clarified that not every error warrants administrative or disciplinary action.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.