Title
Atty. J. Bautista Rabago vs. Hon. Alfonso Calsena, Municipal Judge of Victorias, Negros Occidental
Case
Adm. Matter No. 43-MJ
Decision Date
Nov 29, 1973
A judge was exonerated of gross ignorance, partiality, and evasion charges but admonished for procedural lapses in handling trespass cases due to insufficient evidence and familial ties.
Font Size:

Case Digest (Adm. Matter No. 43-MJ)

Facts:

  1. Parties Involved:

    • Complainant: Atty. J. Bautista Rabago, representing Albina de la Pena, Meliza Diamante, and Soledad Hilado.
    • Respondent: Hon. Alfonso Calsena, Municipal Judge of Victorias, Negros Occidental.
  2. Criminal Cases Filed:

    • Three complaints for qualified trespass to dwelling were filed on September 5, 1972, against Mario Ditching, Leticia J. Ditching, Juan de la Pena, Maximo Ferrer, Jr., Godofredo Ledesma, Serafin Dimatugue, Narsanito Seduco y Jostiliana, Alberto Lagrimas, and one John Doe.
  3. Allegations Against Respondent Judge:

    • Gross Ignorance of the Law and Incompetence: Respondent Judge failed to issue warrants of arrest after a preliminary examination, instead ordering further evidence to determine prima facie cause.
    • Gross Partiality: Respondent allegedly favored the accused by refusing to issue warrants of arrest.
    • Evasion of Duty: Respondent referred the cases to Judge Sixto Guanzon without notice to the complainants, leading to their dismissal.
  4. Respondent’s Defense:

    • Respondent claimed that six prosecution witnesses did not submit affidavits or testify, making it necessary to order further evidence.
    • He cited Section 87, paragraph 3, of the Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended by Republic Act No. 3828, which requires a personal examination of witnesses under oath in writing.
    • Respondent also inhibited himself due to a familial relationship with one of the accused (Atty. Mario A. Ditching, his brother-in-law).
  5. Procedural History:

    • The cases were referred to Judge Sixto Guanzon, who dismissed them after the prosecution failed to present additional evidence.
    • Complainant filed a motion for reconsideration, agreeing to present additional evidence, but the cases were ultimately endorsed to the Provincial Fiscal.
  6. Investigation:

    • The administrative complaint was investigated by Judge Oscar R. Victoriano, who found no sufficient evidence to support the charges but recommended admonishing respondent for procedural lapses.

Issue:

  1. Whether respondent Judge Alfonso Calsena is guilty of:

    • Gross ignorance of the law and incompetence for failing to issue warrants of arrest.
    • Gross partiality for allegedly favoring the accused.
    • Evasion of duty for referring the cases to another judge without notice.
  2. Whether respondent Judge complied with the procedural requirements for preliminary examinations under Section 87, paragraph 3, of the Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended.

  3. Whether respondent Judge’s inhibition was justified under Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court upheld the Investigating Judge’s recommendation, exonerating respondent Judge Alfonso Calsena but admonishing him to strictly comply with procedural rules in the future.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.