Facts:

The case revolves around the complaint filed by Ramon T. Ardosa against Judge Lolita O. Gal-Lang, presiding in Branch 44 of the Regional Trial Court at Manila, and Nenita R. Grijaldo, the Clerk of Court. The complaint arose from their handling of Criminal Case No. 95-146559 concerning illegal recruitment. On December 11, 1995, the prosecutor initially recommended a bail of P8,000 for the accused, which later changed to no bail. On the same date, the accused filed a motion for reconsideration, requesting to delay the issuance of an arrest warrant. However, a warrant was issued that day, but could not be served because the accused were not present at their office.

On December 13, 1995, the accused filed an Urgent Motion to Recall the Warrant of Arrest, arguing it had been prematurely issued. During this time, the complainant, Ardosa, was in court intending to file a motion himself but was persuaded by the Clerk of Court to stay for the hearing of the motion filed by the accused. A

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• A complaint was filed by Ramon T. Ardosa against Judge Lolita O. Gal-lang of the Regional Trial Court, Manila, Branch 44, and Clerk of Court Nenita R. Grijaldo.
• The charges against Judge Gal-lang included grave abuse of authority, manifest bias, gross ignorance of the law, knowingly rendering an unjust judgment, and grave misconduct. The clerk was charged with grave misconduct, gross ignorance, disrespect for the Rules of Court, malfeasance, and misfeasance in public office.

Criminal Case and Proceedings

• Complainant was assigned as the complainant in Criminal Case No. 95-146559 for illegal recruitment, which was originally handled by Judge Gal-lang.
• The prosecutor initially recommended bail of ₱8,000.00 for the provisional release of the accused; however, the recommendation was later modified.
• On December 11, 1995, the accused filed a motion for reinvestigation and requested that the issuance of the warrant of arrest be suspended.
• Despite the pending motion, the warrant of arrest was issued that same day, although it could not be executed immediately because the accused were absent from the Maersk office at 900 Romualdez St., Ermita, Manila.

The Motion to Recall the Warrant

• On December 13, 1995, upon learning of the warrant, the accused filed an Urgent Motion to Recall the Warrant of Arrest.
• They argued that the warrant had been prematurely issued due to their pending opposition to the issuance of the warrant and the motion for reinvestigation.
• It was alleged that some of the accused were not officers or members of the board of Maersk Tabacalera when the alleged act occurred.

Conduct During Hearings

• The prosecutor was present and had been furnished a copy of the motion on the day it was filed, prompting Judge Gal-lang to decide to hear the motion immediately on December 13, 1995.
• Complainant, who was also in court to file a motion for a hold order and to enter his appearance as private prosecutor, requested a postponement of the hearing, citing lack of proper notice and absence of his counsel.
• Despite the request, Judge Gal-lang proceeded with the hearing, and on December 14, 1995, she granted the accused’s motion to recall the warrant while ordering a reinvestigation.

Reconsideration Motion and Order Issuance

• On December 20, 1995, the complainant, acting as private prosecutor, moved for reconsideration of the judge’s ruling regarding the recall of the warrant.
• The hearing for the reconsideration was conducted on December 22, 1995.
• An order denying the complainant’s motion was purportedly made on December 22, 1995; however, the complainant only received a copy on January 18, 1996.
• The complainant accused Judge Gal-lang of antedating her order to simulate prompt issuance immediately after the hearing.

Additional Allegations and Controversies

• Complainant contended that the clerk of court, Nenita Grijaldo, in collusion with the counsel of the accused, inveigled him to attend the hearing.
• Respondents maintained that the urgent nature of the accused’s motion justified the immediate hearing, noting the presence of the public prosecutor and other parties.
• They further alleged that the complainant’s subsequent motion for reconsideration lacked the conformity of the public prosecutor, who had supervisory control over the prosecution.
• The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) later found Judge Gal-lang guilty of abuse of discretion in hearing the motion on the same day it was filed, though the clerk was cleared of any administrative liability.

Subsequent Developments

• On June 19, 1997, it was informed that the criminal case against the accused had been dismissed by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 49, following a resolution by the Secretary of Justice which reversed the City Prosecutor’s resolution and ordered the withdrawal of the information filed.
• The OCA noted that while procedural irregularities were present, the complainant was not deprived of a fair opportunity to be heard, as he was represented by counsel and proper notice had been served, albeit tardily.

Issue:

• Whether the hearing of the accused’s motion to recall the warrant of arrest on the same day it was filed amounted to an abuse of discretion by the judge.
• Whether the judge’s decision to proceed with the hearing without proper notice, thereby allegedly denying the complainant’s right to be heard, violated the due process requirement as mandated by Rule 15, A4 of the Rules of Court.
• Whether the alleged antedating of the order denying the complainant’s motion for reconsideration constitutes judicial misconduct.
• Whether the actions of the clerk of court, specifically persuading the complainant to attend the hearing, in collusion with the accused’s counsel, amount to misconduct and a breach of her official duties.
• Whether the complainant was materially prejudiced by the procedural shortcuts taken by the judge and the subsequent delays in the dissemination of the order.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)