Facts:

In the administrative matter involving Fiscal Juan A. Abing as the complainant and Judge Clotilde J. Salazar as the respondent, the case arises from a series of allegations against Judge Salazar concerning her officiating as a Municipal Judge in Balangiga, Eastern Samar. The complaint was initiated on February 2, 1972, whereby Abing expressed serious concerns regarding Salazar's impartiality following several instances of purported irregularities in her judicial conduct. The allegations include (1) administering Oaths of Office to two elective officials without their signatures, (2) undue delay in issuing summons for a Forcible Entry case filed over a year prior, (3) error in taking jurisdiction over a criminal case involving Acts of Lasciviousness, and (4) refusal to accept a slander complaint from Mrs. Maxima Valdenor against a parish priest, allegedly due to a familial connection. Salazar replied to these claims on April 24, 1972, and this discursive exchange continued un

...

Facts:

Parties and Nature of the Case

• Complainant: Fiscal Juan A. Abing, the then Acting Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Eastern Samar.
• Respondent: Judge Clotilde J. Salazar, Municipal Judge of Balangiga, Eastern Samar.
• Nature of the Complaint: A disqualification proceeding initiated by the complainant against the respondent for purported irregularities in the performance of her duties.

Alleged Irregularities Charged

• Oath Administration Errors
• The respondent allegedly administered oaths of office on separate occasions to two elective officials without requiring them to affix their signatures.
• Specific instances involved Vice-Mayor Floriano Canillas and Mr. Jacinto Carilla, with the former’s Oath later corrected while the latter’s was left uncorrected.
• Delay in Issuing Summons
• In a forcible entry case in Lawa-an, Eastern Samar, the respondent delayed the issuance of a summons by one year, five months, and twelve days from the filing of the complaint (filed on September 20, 1968).
• The delay was associated with a request by the parties themselves to halt the usual legal process in anticipation of an amicable settlement.
• Jurisdictional Error in Handling Cases
• The respondent conducted hearings and rendered decisions on the merits in People vs. Honorato Bayle (Criminal Case No. 34) involving acts of lasciviousness, a case that fell outside her court’s jurisdiction.
• The error was attributed to a mistaken belief that the case was within the zone of concurrence with the Court of First Instance.
• Handling of a Criminal Complaint for Slander by Deed
• The respondent allegedly refused to accept a criminal complaint for slander by deed against Parish Priest Fr. Jose Lentejas.
• The refusal was based on a seemingly flimsy pretext involving a familial connection of her brother with the parish, which resulted in inconvenience and additional expenses for Mrs. Maxima Valdenor, the complainant in that matter.

Procedural History

• Initial Submissions
• The complainant first communicated his concerns via a letter dated February 2, 1972, addressed to the Secretary of Justice.
• The respondent replied with a written comment on the charges on April 24, 1972.
• The complainant then submitted a refutation of the respondent’s explanations on November 18, 1972.
• Verification Process
• The Department of Justice notified the complainant that his initial letter should have been verified if it was to serve as an administrative complaint.
• A verified, verbatim copy of the February 2nd letter was thus submitted on February 1, 1973.
• Referral to the Court
• Pursuant to Section 7, Article X of the new Constitution, the case was referred to the Court by the Undersecretary of Justice on February 22, 1973.
• The Court subsequently referred the matter to the District Judge of the Court of First Instance of Eastern Samar for an investigation and report.

Investigation and Findings by the District Judge

• Charge No. 1 (Oath Administration)
• Findings: It was noted that errors were made in the signature affixation during oath-taking; however, the circumstances (e.g., acting capacity and subsequent corrections) mitigated the respondent’s culpability.
• Observation: The investigator found the errors excusable and satisfactory in explanation.
• Charge No. 2 (Delay in Issuing Summons)
• Findings: The delay in issuing the summons was attributed to the parties’ request to temporarily suspend the legal process in favor of an amicable settlement.
• Observation: Despite a prolonged delay and multiple hearings, there was no clear evidence of wrongful conduct since the delay was aligned with the request of the litigants.
• Charge No. 3 (Jurisdictional Error)
• Findings: The respondent admitted to taking cognizance of a case (Acts of Lasciviousness, Criminal Case No. 1242) beyond her jurisdiction, basing her action on an honest mistake of judgment.
• Observation: The error was not fueled by any ulterior motive or intent to cause injustice, marking it as an isolated and non-malicious lapse.
• Charge No. 4 (Handling of Complaint for Slander by Deed)
• Findings: The investigation revealed that the offended party had been advised to prepare her complaint by the respondent herself; consequently, the complaint was eventually filed by the plaintiff.
• Observation: There was no substantial evidence to suggest that the respondent’s act adversely affected her judicial performance in this regard.

Summary of Context

• The investigation determined that the majority of the charges were based on minor or excusable lapses rather than evidencing a lack of judicial fitness.
• Even the jurisdictional mistake was deemed an honest error committed without ill motive.
• The importance of judicial prudence and the need to maintain public confidence were underscored throughout the report.

Issue:

The Sufficiency and Gravity of the Alleged Irregularities

• Whether the omission in obtaining signatures during the oath-taking constitutes a significant administrative lapse warranting sanction.
• Whether the delay in issuing summons—amidst parties’ request for an amicable settlement—is attributable to judicial neglect or an acceptable administrative discretion.
• Whether the respondent’s assumption of jurisdiction in a case of acts of lasciviousness, though erroneous, indicates misconduct or a mere innocent mistake.
• Whether the handling of the criminal complaint for slander by deed reflects an undue interference or an acceptable procedural measure.

The Appropriate Judicial Response

• Whether the errors and procedural delays justify imposing administrative sanctions against Judge Salazar.
• How the weight of these administrative lapses should be balanced against the overall need to preserve confidence in the judiciary.
• The determination of whether the respondent’s conduct substantively undermined the integrity and impartiality required of a judge.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)