Facts:

The case at hand arises from a Complaint filed on December 7, 2020, by Atty. Joselito M. Baetiong (complainant) against Presiding Judge Jo Anne N. Dela Cruz-Malaton (respondent), who presides over the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Casiguran-Dilasag-Dinalungan, Aurora. The complaint centers around Criminal Case No. 3033, entitled "People of the Philippines v. Rachelle Vida Longalong Reyes, et al.", concerning the crime of falsification under Article 172(1), in relation to Article 171(4) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).

The complainant was the witness in the aforementioned criminal case, which was previously managed by the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor (OPP) of Aurora. On September 3, 2018, due to the disqualification of the provincial prosecutor over familial ties with the defense attorney, an Assistant Regional Prosecutor (ARP) took over the prosecution. The case was subsequently assigned to the respondent after the presiding judge of the MCTC of Baler

...

Facts:

Background of the Criminal Case

• Complainant Atty. Joselito M. Baetiong, the complaining witness in Criminal Case No. 3033 (“People of the Philippines v. Rachelle Vida Longalong Reyes, et al.”) filed a complaint on December 7, 2020.
• The complaint charged respondent Presiding Judge Jo Anne N. Dela Cruz-Malaton of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Casiguran-Dilasag-Dinalungan, Aurora with gross incompetence and gross ignorance of the law.
• The criminal case involved allegations of falsification by private individuals under Article 172(1) in relation to Article 171(4) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).

Chronology of the Proceedings in Criminal Case No. 3033

• On September 3, 2018, Provincial Prosecutor Jobert D. Reyes filed a Manifestation for Voluntary Inhibition after complainant alleged a conflict of interest based on defense counsel’s relation to the prosecutor.
• An Assistant Regional Prosecutor (ARP) substituted the inhibited provincial prosecutor.
• The case was later assigned to respondent after the Presiding Judge of the MCTC of Baler-San Luis, Aurora also voluntarily inhibited upon complainant’s motion.
• On January 28, 2020, during arraignment and pretrial:
• Only the ARP and complainant appeared.
• The accused and their counsel were absent despite due notice.
• Respondent, as prayed for by the ARP, cancelled the bail previously posted for the accused, ordered arrest warrants, and fixed bail at PHP 36,000.00 per accused.
• The same day, the accused (Rachelle Vida Longalong Reyes and Reynon C. Reyes) filed a Motion for Reconsideration (MR) at 5:35 p.m. alleging lack of receipt of the Notice of Hearing and that it was their first absence.
• Virginia B. Idia also filed a similar Motion for Reconsideration.
• Both motions scheduled a hearing for January 29, 2020, at 8:00 a.m.
• On January 29, 2020, respondent issued an ex parte Order:
• Denied the two motions for reconsideration.
• Reduced the bail amount for each accused from PHP 36,000.00 to PHP 18,000.00.
• Justified the reduction on the ground that it was the first time the accused failed to attend the hearing.

Allegations of Procedural Defects and Administrative Complaint

• Complainant asserted that respondent issued her January 29, 2020 Order without proper justification and in violation of the “3-day notice rule.”
• It was argued that the ex parte hearing deprived the prosecution of an opportunity to be heard.
• Complainant further contended that:
• Respondent erroneously accepted the accused’s claim that it was their first absence despite prior records showing their non-attendance.
• This action amounted to gross incompetence by not verifying the case records.
• Subsequent procedural events:
• In a Comment dated January 25, 2021, respondent questioned the specificity of charges against her.
• Complainant, after respondent’s reassignment (following motions for inhibition), persisted in his actions by also requesting a venue transfer of related criminal cases.
• A Supplemental Complaint was later filed on June 11, 2021, alleging that respondent violated the judiciary’s franking privilege by not paying for postage on a letter.
• Respondent provided evidence in the form of a Sertipikasyon from the Postmaster to rebut the allegation regarding postage.

Judicial Integrity Board (JIB) Report and Recommendations

• On February 10, 2022, the JIB-OED recommended:
• Fining respondent for gross ignorance of the law.
• Considering other allegations as unmeritorious.
• The JIB noted that:
• The motions for reconsideration were litigious in nature requiring compliance with the “3-day notice” rule.
• Respondent’s ex parte resolution of the motions and unilateral reduction of bail deprived the opposing party of its right to be heard.
• Failing to observe the elementary procedural requirement constituted gross ignorance of the law.
• A subsequent Report dated March 8, 2023, by the JIB Proper adopted these recommendations, adding that:
• Respondent be redocketed as a regular administrative case.
• She be found guilty of gross ignorance of the law and procedure and fined PHP 50,000.00.
• Consideration was given to her long service (over 19 years) and that this was her first administrative charge, thereby mitigating the penalty.

Additional Context and Arguments

• Respondent contended that the “3-day notice rule” is a procedural safeguard that may be relaxed “for good cause” as allowed by Rule 15, Section 4 of the Rules of Court.
• Complainant argued that the immediate acceptance of the motions for reconsideration and the reduction of bail were baseless because:
• The accused had sufficient means to secure legal representation.
• The rules clearly require motions to be heard on proper notice.
• Further, the hostile actions by the complainant were noted:
• His repeated motions for inhibition and venue transfer.
• His allegations concerning the franking privilege.
• His actions were seen as an abuse of court processes intended to secure administrative liability against respondent.

Issue:

Whether respondent, Presiding Judge Jo Anne N. Dela Cruz-Malaton, violated the procedural due process by failing to observe the “3-day notice” rule when handling the motions for reconsideration.

• Did the respondent’s immediate ex parte action on the motions for reconsideration, without serving adequate notice, prejudicially affect the due process rights of the accused and the opposing party?
• Whether the reduction of bail, executed unilaterally and without request from the accused, constitutes an overstep of judicial authority.

Whether the actions of respondent amount to gross ignorance of the law and procedure, warranting administrative sanctions under the amended Rule 140.

• Is the failure to observe the mandatory hearing requirements—established by Rule 15, Sections 4 and 5 of the Rules of Civil Procedure—a sufficient ground for holding her administratively liable?
• Does the record evidence support that respondent disregarded basic procedural requirements and acted with a disregard of due process?

• Whether complainant’s repeated filings, including motions for inhibition and allegations concerning the franking privilege, indicate an abuse of court processes.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)