Facts:

In the case of Mamasaw Sultan Ali vs. Hon. Baguinda Ali Pacalna, et al., the complainant, Mamasaw Sultan Ali, filed a verified complaint on January 30, 2003, against several respondents, including Judge Baguinda Ali Pacalna, Judge Pundaya A. Berua, Clerk of Court Hadji Ibra Darimbang, and Court Stenographer Mandag U. Batua-an, all affiliated with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court in Balindong, Lanao del Sur. The complaint alleged grave abuse of discretion, dishonesty, gross ignorance of the law, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, particularly in relation to Election Case No. 2002-10-M.

The events leading to the complaint began on January 18, 2002, when Sultan Ali and other residents from various barangays in Madalum filed 20 petitions for inclusion in the permanent list of voters, which were assigned to Judge Pacalna. The petitioners claimed they were unable to register during the general registration of voters on December 26, 20...

Facts:

Filing and Nature of the Complaint

• Complainant Mamasaw Sultan Ali filed a verified complaint on January 30, 2003 before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).
• The complaint charged respondent Judge Baguinda Ali Pacalna, along with Judge Pundaya A. Berua and Clerk of Court Hadji Ibra Darimbang, with grave abuse of discretion, dishonesty, gross ignorance of the law, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service in connection with Election Case No. 2002-10-M.
• The complaint arose from irregularities in the handling of petitions for inclusion in the permanent voter list in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Balindong, Lanao Del Sur.

Background of the Voter Registration Proceedings

• On December 26, 2001, residents including complainant appeared at the designated registration center to enlist as voters during the general registration of voters but were unable to register due to the unavailability of registration forms.
• The Assistant Election Officer, Amerogong Tumara, advised the residents to list their names to later obtain a certification needed for petitioning their inclusion.
• Complainant and other petitioners subsequently filed 20 petitions (Election Case Nos. 2002-01-M to 2002-20-M) on January 18, 2002, with complainant being the petitioner in Case No. 2002-10-M.
• The petitions were initially scheduled for hearing on a February date (day unspecified) at 9:00 A.M. and were served on Tumara on January 17, 2002.

Handling by the Municipal Circuit Trial Court

• No order was issued by Judge Pacalna regarding the petitions from the filing until early May 2002, except for a motion to transfer venue filed by complainant’s lawyer, Atty. Masorong.
• On May 6, 2002, Judge Pacalna finally issued an order setting the hearing for three days later.
• During the May 9, 2002 hearing, Judge Pacalna explained that the primary purpose was to verify the authenticity of Tumara’s signature on the certified list.
• Atty. Masorong objected to the necessity of such verification as Tumara had not questioned the signatures upon receipt of the petitions.
• Tumara did not personally appear at the hearing; instead, he sent a letter stating that his wife was ill and requested a reset of the hearing.

Controversies and Irregularities Noted During the Proceedings

• Appearance of Atty. Superman A. Usop as counsel for the incumbent Municipal Mayor, Soraida M. Sarangani, was irregularly recognized by Judge Pacalna without a formal motion for intervention, despite the vigorous objection of complainant’s counsel.
• During the May 9 hearing, Judge Pacalna suggested, informally at his residence, that only two representatives from the opposing camps should appear and that the parties should attend without counsel because the matter was solely to determine the authenticity of the signature.
• Atty. Usop later filed a Motion for Intervention with a Motion to Dismiss on May 13, 2002, with a reset hearing scheduled for May 23, 2002.
• Complainant’s counsel, Atty. Masorong, along with other petitioners, failed to attend the May 23 hearing, though representatives did appear later.
• During the May 23 hearing, Tumara testified that he signed the certificate under duress, an assertion later supported by a letter submitted by him.
• Despite requests, complainant was denied access to the letter and the transcript of stenographic notes, as the court stenographer, Mandag U. Batua-an, cited that the records were either not in the office or were unsatisfactory (unsigned transcript and an incorrect tape containing only music).

Subsequent Motions, Appeals, and Remand

• On May 27, 2002, complainant and co-petitioners filed motions for the urgent resolution of the petition pending issue, stressing the proximity of barangay elections and impending deadlines for filing candidacy.
• A motion for the inhibition of Judge Pacalna by Atty. Masorong was filed on June 4, 2002 after suspicions that the delay was intentional to prevent voter registration.
• On June 6, 2002, a Notice of Appeal was filed from the order dismissing the petitions.
• The files, including the disputed transcript and tape, were forwarded by the MCTC on June 14, 2002 to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Marawi City for further proceedings.
• The RTC, on July 1, 2002, reversed the MCTC’s judgment by striking the transcript from the records and finding no convincing evidence that Tumara signed under duress; it remanded the cases for further hearing on the merits and ordered Judge Pacalna to inhibit himself.

Further Developments on Remand and Judicial Intervention

• Respondent Judge Berua was designated as Acting Presiding Judge for the MCTC after the remand.
• An alleged May 23, 2002 order, purportedly granting Mayor Sarangani’s motion for intervention, became a contentious issue as complainants asserted that there was no evidence of a formal hearing or proper documentation.
• During the July 2002 hearings, Judge Berua examined the petitioners’ qualifications as voters and called upon Tumara again regarding his earlier testimony.
• On July 11, 2002, Judge Berua dismissed the petitions for the second time on jurisdictional grounds, stating that the petitions did not comply with requirements under COMELEC Resolution No. 4164, particularly not being filed against an order of the Election Registration Board (ERB).

Administrative Charges and Court Personnel Involvement

• Respondents (the judges and court personnel) later argued that the true complainant was, in fact, Atty. Masorong and denied any deliberate delay in the inclusion process.
• Judge Pacalna and others contended that procedural lapses were due to various reasons including alleged requests by Atty. Masorong's wife to postpone the hearings due to financial constraints.
• Notably, the disputed transcript was unsigned, and the tape recording provided was defective, raising issues as to the responsibility of Court Stenographer Mandag U. Batua-an.
• Subsequent administrative investigations, including reports by Judge Amer Ibrahim of RTC Marawi City, led to recommendations against Batua-an.
• Ultimately, the OCA recommended the dismissal of charges against Judge Berua and Clerk Darimbang, while holding Judge Pacalna accountable for procedural delays and dishonesty, and reprimanding Batua-an for his negligence in record custody.

Issue:

Authenticity and Fabrication of Documents

• Whether the alleged May 23, 2002 order granting Mayor Sarangani’s motion for intervention was genuine or a fabrication.
• The issue of the unsigned transcript and defective tape recording, and the accountability of the court stenographer for failing to properly document the proceedings.

Procedural Irregularities and Due Process Violations

• Whether the delay in setting and conducting the hearings (from the filing on January 18, 2002 until the hearing in May 2002) constituted a violation of procedural rules and deprived the petitioners of due process.
• Whether complainant’s right to cross-examine pertinent witnesses (such as Tumara) was violated by allowing testimonial evidence without proper opportunity for rebuttal.

Jurisdictional and Technical Grounds for Dismissal

• Whether the order dismissing the petitions on the ground of non-compliance with the jurisdictional requirements of COMELEC Resolution No. 4164 was properly based given the nature of the petitions.
• The issues raised by the failure of petitioners to have their evidence formally recorded and the subsequent reliance on oral testimony.

Accountability and Integrity within the Judiciary

• Whether Judge Pacalna’s conduct, specifically his delay, failure to observe proper procedure, and alleged fabrication of the order, amounted to dishonesty and gross ignorance of the law.
• Determining the responsibility of the court personnel (i.e., Clerk Darimbang and Stenographer Batua-an) for the lapses in the maintenance and transmission of court records.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Decisions of the Lower Courts

• The initial dismissal of the petitions by Judge Pacalna was based, in part, on Tumara’s testimony that he signed under duress, as well as on alleged non-compliance with jurisdictional requirements.

• The RTC reversed the MCTC’s dismissal on July 1, 2002 by striking the disputed transcript from the records, holding there was no clear evidence of duress, and remanding the cases for further hearing on the merits.

• Subsequently, on July 11, 2002, Judge Berua dismissed the petitions anew on jurisdictional grounds, noting that the proper party against whom the petition should have been filed was not correct.

Administrative Resolution on Charges Against Respondents

• Following comprehensive administrative investigations and the submission of affidavits by court personnel, the OCA recommended:
• Exoneration of Judge Berua and Clerk of Court Darimbang for the alleged administrative lapses.
• Accountability of Judge Pacalna for delays, failure to adhere to proper procedure, and a fabricated order – thus constituting acts of dishonesty and gross ignorance of the law.
• Reprimand of Court Stenographer Mandag U. Batua-an for his failure to sign and properly handle the transcript and tape.
• The final resolution imposed a fine of ₱20,000.00 on Judge Pacalna (with a warning that further similar misconduct would result in harsher penalties) and reprimanded Batua-an with a similar warning.
• The contested May 23, 2002 order was found to be a sham, with no evidence showing that a valid hearing and grant of intervention had taken place.

Concurrence and Additional Views

• While all respondents except Judge Pacalna and Batua-an were exonerated after due scrutiny of the records, some concurring opinions (such as that of Justice Austria-Martinez) suggested an even hef...continue reading
  Unlock Full Case Digest