Facts:

This case pertains to a complaint filed by German Agunday against Judge Nieto T. Tresvalles, the presiding judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Virac, Catanduanes, for gross ignorance of the law, inefficiency, and partiality regarding his handling of Criminal Case No. 4792, titled "People v. Lope Panti, Sr., et al." The events leading to this administrative complaint began on September 25, 1997, when Second Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Antonio C.A. Ayo, Jr. filed an information for malicious mischief against Lope Panti, Sr., Leopoldo Panti, and Engr. Fernando Asuncion. The respondent judge conducted a preliminary investigation and required the accused to post bail amounting to P4,200.00 each.

On January 26, 1998, respondent Judge Tresvalles identified that the case was subject to the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure and mandated that the complaint and supporting affidavits be served to the accused, who were required to file their counter-affidavits within ten day

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• German Agunday, the complainant, filed a complaint against Judge Nieto T. Tresvalles of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Virac, Catanduanes.
• The complaint charged the judge with gross ignorance of the law, inefficiency, and partiality in handling Criminal Case No. 4792 (People v. Lope Panti, Sr., et al.).

Initiation of Criminal Proceedings

• On September 25, 1997, the Second Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Virac, Catanduanes, filed an information for malicious mischief against Lope Panti, Sr., Leopoldo Panti, and Engr. Fernando Asuncion.
• Respondent judge conducted a preliminary investigation and erroneously required each accused to post a bail bond of P4,200.00.

Issues on the Application of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure

• On January 26, 1998 (four months after the filing), the judge issued an order declaring that the case was governed by the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure.
• He directed that a copy of the complaint along with the complainant’s affidavits be served on the accused, with instructions to file counter-affidavits within ten days.

The Motion to Quash and Subsequent Proceedings

• On August 10, 1998, defense counsel filed a motion to quash the information on the ground that the facts charged did not constitute an offense, citing comparable dismissals and findings of the Ombudsman.
• Complainant’s counsel learned of the motion only minutes before the scheduled hearing, and she opposed it on the basis that under the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure such a pleading was prohibited.
• Instead of immediately ruling on the motion to quash, the judge directed complainant’s counsel to submit her opposition in writing, giving her 30 minutes to do so.

Issuance of the Dismissal Order

• On August 11, 1998, the judge rendered an order dismissing the criminal case for lack of jurisdiction, stating that the case should have first been referred to the barangay justice for mediation and conciliation.
• This dismissal order was later reconsidered following a manifestation by the Private Prosecutor indicating that the parties resided in different barangays, thus negating the need for such prior referral.
• On October 7, 1998, the formal complaint against the judge was filed by the complainant, emphasizing several alleged procedural irregularities.

Complainant’s Allegations Against the Judge

• The judge delayed resolving the motion to quash, taking 20 days before mailing (and ultimately issuing) the dismissal order, which was purportedly antedated to August 11, 1998.
• Despite the motion being properly pending, the judge improperly required a written opposition instead of addressing the motion in court, thereby causing further delay.
• The complainant also charged that the judge’s prolonged handling (11 months from the filing date to final determination) exhibited inefficiency.
• An additional allegation was filed regarding impropriety, noting that one of the accused (Lope Panti, Sr.) was the father-in-law of the judge’s daughter, thereby creating an appearance of partiality.

Findings by the Office of the Court Administrator

• The Office found that the judge’s actions included misapplication of the Rules on Summary Procedure, undue delay in issuing orders, and a failure to immediately dismiss the prohibited motion to quash.
• It was noted that the dismissal order was based on an erroneous requirement for prior referral to the barangay justice when, in fact, the complainant lived in a different locale (Cavite) than the accused (Virac, Catanduanes).
• The Office recommended administrative sanctions, including re-docketing the complaint as an administrative matter and imposing a fine.

Issue:

Procedural Classification of the Case

• Whether the criminal case should be governed by the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure or the regular rules, particularly given the charge of malicious mischief and the requirement to post bail.

Timeliness and Procedural Errors

• Whether the judge’s four-month lapse in issuing the proper order (declaring the case under summary procedure and instructing service of complaint/affidavits) constituted inefficiency.
• Whether requiring bail, despite the case falling under the summary procedure which normally does not require such security, was a misapplication of the law.

Handling of the Motion to Quash

• Whether the judge should have outrightly denied the motion to quash on the ground that it was a prohibited pleading under the Revised Rule, except when based on jurisdictional issues or failure of referral.
• Whether the procedural order that required a 30-minute written opposition was proper in the context of summary procedure rules.

Dismissal of the Case

• Whether the dismissal of the criminal case for alleged lack of jurisdiction (lack of prior referral to the barangay justice) was factually and legally justified.
• Whether the judge’s eventual reinstatement of the case upon clarification of the parties’ residential status negates or confirms the initial error.

Accusations of Partiality and Impropriety

• Whether the judge’s decision to continue handling the case, despite his familial connection (his daughter’s relation to one of the accused), created an appearance of impropriety or partiality.
• Whether his repeated assurances and handling of the proceedings, in light of such conflict, reflect an abuse of judicial discretion.

Allegations of Antedating and Delay

• Whether the antedating of the dismissal order, meant to mask the delay in resolving the motion to quash, amounts to deliberate misconduct.
• Whether internal administrative delays (such as mailing versus drafting dates) justify the timing of the judge’s orders.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)