Case Digest (A.M. No. MTJ-93-753)
Facts:
In the case of Director Edmundo S. Ancog vs. Judge Jose Z. Tan, the complainant, Director Edmundo S. Ancog of the Human Rights Commission, filed a complaint against Judge Jose Z. Tan, who served as the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) judge in Catbalogan, Samar. The complaint, dated January 14, 1993, accused Judge Tan of gross ignorance of the law for issuing an arrest warrant against Joel Navarete based on hearsay evidence, which violated Section 6(b), Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. This action led to Navarete's arrest and subsequent detention for twenty-two days. The events began on March 14, 1991, when P/Capt. Manuel B. Calbes, the Chief of Police of Catbalogan, filed a complaint for estafa against Lito Mirelles, Joel Navarete, and another individual concerning a tricycle valued at P9,500.00, which was allegedly not returned to its owner, Joselito Mate. The complaint included an affidavit from Mate, who claimed that he had entrusted the tricycle to Mirelles, who failed to ...
Case Digest (A.M. No. MTJ-93-753)
Facts:
- Complaint Filed: On 14 January 1993, Director Edmundo S. Ancog of the Human Rights Commission filed a complaint against Judge Jose Z. Tan of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Catbalogan, Samar, for gross ignorance of the law. The complaint stemmed from the issuance of a warrant of arrest against Joel Navarete based on hearsay evidence, in violation of Section 6(b), Rule 112 of the Rules of Court.
- Estafa Case: On 14 March 1991, P/Capt. Manuel B. Calbes, Chief of Police of Catbalogan, filed a complaint for estafa against Lito Mirelles, Joel Navarete, and a certain Jun. The complaint alleged that a tricycle valued at P9,500.00, owned by Joselito Mate, was entrusted to Lito Mirelles but was not returned despite demand.
- Sworn Statement: Joselito Mate’s affidavit, sworn before Judge Tan, stated that the tricycle was found near Joel Navarete’s house without wheels. Joselito claimed that Lito’s wife informed him that Joel and Jun were with Lito when the wheels were removed.
- Warrant of Arrest: Judge Tan issued a warrant of arrest against the accused, including Joel Navarete, on 14 March 1991, based on the sworn statement. Joel Navarete was arrested on 15 March 1991 and detained for 22 days.
- Motion to Quash: On 26 March 1991, Atty. Ediberto G. Morales filed a motion to quash the warrant of arrest, arguing that it was based on hearsay evidence.
- Dismissal of Case: On 3 April 1991, Judge Tan dismissed the case against Joel Navarete, admitting that the warrant was issued based on insufficient evidence.
- Respondent’s Defense: Judge Tan admitted to "inadvertently" issuing the warrant but claimed it was an honest mistake due to his heavy workload and health issues. He later applied for disability retirement, which was approved on 27 July 1993.
Issue:
- Whether Judge Jose Z. Tan committed gross ignorance of the law in issuing a warrant of arrest against Joel Navarete based on hearsay evidence, in violation of Section 6(b), Rule 112 of the Rules of Court.
- Whether Judge Tan’s actions warrant administrative liability despite his admission of mistake and subsequent dismissal of the case.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court found Judge Jose Z. Tan administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law. The Court imposed a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) to be deducted from his terminal leave pay.
Ratio:
- (Unlock)