Facts:

The case at hand, Ricardo Arrojado vs. Hon. Sabas Quijano, A.M. No. 855-MJ, was brought before the Second Division of the Philippine Supreme Court and was decided on September 9, 1977. The complainant, Ricardo Arrojado, filed a sworn complaint against Judge Sabas Quijano, who served as the Municipal Judge of Da-anbantayan, Cebu. Arrojado's allegations included misconduct such as malicious mischief, conduct unbecoming of a public officer, abuse of public office, and coercion. The basis of Arrojado's complaint stemmed from events that occurred around the third week of November 1974, during which he claimed that Judge Quijano unlawfully altered the boundary of his land in favor of the property belonging to the late Gregorio Rodrigo, the father-in-law of Quijano’s nephew. Specifically, it was alleged that Quijano planted "tuba-tuba" plants approximately half a meter beyond the established boundary, which had been recognized for over fifty years.

Additionally, it w

...

Facts:

Background of the Complaint

• Ricardo Arrojado, the complainant, filed a sworn complaint against Municipal Judge Sabas Quijano.
• The charges included malicious mischief, conduct unbecoming of a public officer, abuse of public office, and coercion.

Alleged Acts Committed by the Judge (as asserted by the complainant)

• The judge allegedly altered the boundary of Arrojado’s land by planting "tuba-tuba" plants approximately 1/2 meter away from the original boundary that had been in existence for nearly 51 years.
• It was claimed that the alteration favored the property owned by the late Gregorio Rodrigo (relative of the judge by connection through his nephew).
• The complainant further asserted that Judge Quijano pressured his sister, Rosario Arrojado, along with Buenaventura Arrojado and Panfila Sericon, to sign an agreement thereby making the altered boundary permanent.
• The complainant maintained that, on account of the judge’s malicious and partial intervention, the new boundary markers (the planted tuba-tuba) were cut and destroyed by the sisters and hired hands of his nephew, causing damage to his property.

The Respondent Judge’s Version of Events

• The respondent explained that in the second week of November 1974, daughters of the late Gregorio Rodrigo—Illuminada and Lucena Rodrigo—sought consultation regarding a boundary dispute with the heirs of Cayetano Arrojado.
• The Rodrigo sisters presented a deed of sale evidencing their father’s acquisition of a parcel of land, prompting the judge to act as a mediator.
• Judge Quijano summoned the heirs of Cayetano Arrojado to his office with the intention of having an amicable settlement concerning the boundary dispute.
• On November 18, 1974, accompanied by Police Chief Virgilio D. Inot and former Police Chief Felix Arriesgado, the judge conducted an ocular inspection at the disputed site.

The Boundary Demarcation Process

• Upon arrival at the contested land, the judge found the interested parties along with bystanders awaiting the proceedings.
• Using the deed of sale as a guideline, the parties attempted to trace the old boundary of Gregorio Rodrigo’s land.
• At one point, the parties could not locate the customary banyan or balete tree ("dakit") which historically marked the boundaries.
• At the suggestion of Andrew Arrojado—one of the heirs of Cayetano Arrojado—the parties temporarily used a string tied to an "an-arC" tree to mark the line.

Subsequent Developments and Reactions

• The judge clarified that his role was to mediate and to show the parties the small extent of the disputed area, advising them on whether to settle amicably or litigate further.
• While some heirs (Andrew, Rosario, and Buenaventura Arrojado) appeared to accept the proposed demarcation, Panfila Sericon (acting as the aunt) maintained that the original demarcation in the form of an old pile of stones should prevail.
• The following day, Andrew Arrojado informed the judge that he did not agree with the new boundary, citing his father Cayetano's opposition.
• Judge Quijano subsequently submitted affidavits from Buenaventura Arrojado, Andrew Arrojado, Rosario Arrojado, and Panfila Sericon to verify his account.
• The affidavits contradicted the claim that the judge had coerced any party into consenting to a new boundary line.

Outcome of the Complaint Proceedings

• Given the absence of the complainant’s direct presence at the time of the boundary inspection and the strong evidence provided by the testimonies, a prima facie case of judicial misfeasance or malfeasance was not established.
• The judgment was rendered dismissing the complaint filed by Ricardo Arrojado.

Issue:

Whether Municipal Judge Sabas Quijano committed acts amounting to malicious mischief, conduct unbecoming of a public officer, abuse of public office, and coercion in connection with the boundary dispute.

• Determination of whether the alterations made during the boundary demarcation process constituted an abuse of judicial power.
• Examination of the allegations regarding the allegedly coercive actions taken against members (Rosario Arrojado, Buenaventura Arrojado, and Panfila Sericon) of the complainant’s family.
• Consideration of the complainant’s absence during the actual boundary-setting event and its implications on the prima facie evidence of misfeasance.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)