Facts:

The case revolves around Reynaldo V. Abundo, who filed a complaint against Judge Gregorio E. Manio Jr. of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 40 in Daet, Camarines Norte, on December 10, 1996. Abundo's complaint alleged that Judge Manio exhibited (1) partiality, (2) fraternization with party-litigants and lawyers involved in pending cases before him, and (3) ignorance of essential procedural rules. The background of the case stems from Criminal Case No. 8145, where Abundo faced charges for allegedly falsifying public documents related to his role as the General Manager of the Camarines Norte Electric Cooperative, Inc. (CANARECO). A motion filed by Abundo on April 4, 1994, seeking to defer his arraignment due to a pending appeal with the Department of Justice, was denied by Judge Manio on April 5, 1994. In contrast, the judge granted a similar motion issued by Atty. Jose D. Pajarillo, a party-litigant and the complainant in a libel case against Abundo, demonstrating a disparity

...

Facts:

Filing of Complaint and Allegations

• Complainant Reynaldo V. Abundo, then General Manager of Camarines Norte Electric Cooperative, Inc. (CANORECO), filed a verified Complaint on November 20, 1996, charging Judge Gregorio E. Manio Jr. with:
• Partiality in handling cases.
• Fraternizing with a party-litigant and lawyer involved in pending cases before him.
• Ignorance of basic procedural rules.
• The Office of the Court Administrator received the Complaint on December 10, 1996, prompting further investigation.

Background on Related Cases and Proceedings

• Criminal Case No. 8145 – Falsification of a Public Document
• An Information for falsification of public document was filed against Abundo on February 18, 1994, alleging that he falsified the 1992 Summary Reports of CANORECO’s annual meeting.
• Abundo filed a motion on April 4, 1994, to defer his arraignment scheduled for the next day, citing the pendency of his petition for review before the Department of Justice.
• Although Abundo reiterated his motion at the hearing on April 5, 1994, it was opposed by both the public prosecutor and a complaining witness (Atty. Jose D. Pajarillo), resulting in its denial.
• Criminal Case No. 8632 – Libel Against Atty. Jose D. Pajarillo
• An Information for libel was filed on October 20, 1995, against Atty. Pajarillo, who was also a private prosecutor.
• The proceedings in this case were suspended on December 4, 1995, and again reiterated on March 29, 1996, pending the resolution of Atty. Pajarillo’s petition for review before the Department of Justice.
• Civil Case No. 6681 – Petition for Injunction and Damages
• On July 2, 1996, a petition for an injunction and damages was filed by members of CANORECO’s board of directors against Abundo and other employees.
• The petition was amended on July 3, 1996, and on the same day, Judge Manio issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) enjoining the complainant and his co-respondents from performing acts related to their office.

Presentation of Evidence and Proceedings

• Complainant’s evidence included a series of documentary exhibits:
• Exhibits “A” through “H” – Covering the Information, transcript notes, various orders across Criminal and Civil Cases, and the TRO.
• Respondent’s evidence was similarly documented with exhibits:
• Exhibits “I” through “8-c-4” – These included orders, transcripts, motions, articles, minutes of special raffles, and certifications from clerks and interpreters.
• Certain exhibits (e.g., Exhibits “6-d”, “6-d-1”, and “6-d-2”) were excluded for being hearsay.
• Rebuttal evidence was later presented by the complainant on February 12, 1999, which included additional documents identified as Exhibits “I” through “N.”

Investigation and Report

• The matter was referred by the Supreme Court in its Resolution dated September 16, 1998 to Court of Appeals Justice Marina L. Buzon for a thorough investigation.
• Justice Buzon’s Report, filed on April 30, 1999, compiled the factual antecedents, presentation of documentary evidence, and opinions on the alleged judicial misconduct.
• The investigation focused on:
• Comparing the handling of motions to defer arraignments in separate criminal cases involving Abundo and Atty. Pajarillo.
• Examining the procedural lapses associated with the issuance of the TRO in Civil Case No. 6681.
• Determining whether the social interactions between Judge Manio and Atty. Pajarillo amounted to fraternization affecting case outcomes.

Issue:

Partiality and Bias

• Whether Judge Manio exhibited bias by denying Abundo’s motion to defer his arraignment in Criminal Case No. 8145 while granting a similar motion for Atty. Pajarillo in Criminal Case No. 8632.
• Whether the differential treatment of similar motions violated the principle of judicial neutrality and due process.

Discretion in Issuing a Warrant of Arrest

• Whether the judge’s failure to issue a warrant of arrest against Atty. Pajarillo in Criminal Case No. 8632 was justified by his reliance on pending determinations of probable cause and the absence of supporting investigative records.
• Whether the judge properly exercised his discretion or allowed personal bias to interfere with procedural mandates.

Fraternization and Appearance of Impartiality

• Whether the interactions between Judge Manio and Atty. Pajarillo—ranging from riding together for official court business to private meetings—constituted improper fraternization that casts doubt on judicial impartiality.
• Whether such personal relationships conflict with the ethical responsibilities imposed on judges.

Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)

• Whether Judge Manio’s issuance of the TRO in Civil Case No. 6681 without conducting a summary hearing, as required by Administrative Circular No. 20-95, was procedurally and legally justified.
• Whether the delay and lack of proper notice in setting the summary hearing prejudiced the rights of the parties involved in the civil case.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)