Facts:

This case involves Dr. Doroteo F. Bala, the complainant, and Judge Manuel Romillo, Jr., the respondent. The incident that prompted the administrative complaint took place on September 25, 1973, during a scheduled hearing in Civil Case No. 3336-11 at the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte in Laoag City. Dr. Bala had traveled from Olongapo City to attend the hearing but found the courtroom closed. He alleged that he encountered offensive and insulting behavior from Judge Romillo in chambers, where he reportedly ordered Dr. Bala and his daughter to leave.

In response, Judge Romillo submitted a verified answer denying ever meeting Dr. Bala on the date of the incident. He claimed that only the counsel for the plaintiff appeared for the hearing and that the case adjourned without the respondent's knowledge, subsequently returning to his hotel room to work on prior cases. Romillo indicated that he learned from Atty. Ernesto Madamba, the clerk, of an altercation that occurred b

...

Facts:

Parties Involved

• Complainant:
• Dr. Doroteo F. Bala, an elderly physician (84 years old) from Olongapo City, noted for his defective eyesight due to past eye operations (first in 1969 and second in 1972).
• Represented himself without legal counsel due to financial constraints.
• Respondent:
• Judge Manuel Romillo, Jr., at the time presiding over Branch II of the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte in Laoag City.
• Accused by the complainant as having engaged in offensive and insulting behavior during a court hearing.

Background of the Incident

• On September 25, 1973, Dr. Bala traveled from Olongapo City to a scheduled hearing for Civil Case No. 3336-11.
• Upon arrival, he discovered the courtroom was closed and later alleged that inside the judge’s chambers, he was subjected to offensive language and was ordered, along with his daughter, to leave the premises.
• Respondent Judge Romillo denied involvement, asserting that he “did not meet or see” the complainant on that day, and attributed the discrepancy either to a failure of memory or to malicious falsehood.

Pre-Hearing and Initial Testimonies

• Due to conflicting verified assertions by the parties, the matter was referred to Justice Buenaventura S. de la Fuente for a fact-finding investigation.
• The investigator allowed Dr. Bala to testify in narrative form, without legal counsel, after ensuring that he was willing to proceed under his vulnerable appearance and defective eyesight.
• Dr. Bala admitted during cross-examination that:
• He needed a guide due to his impaired vision.
• He might confuse individuals because his perception was akin to “seeing every person or object a little bit like a shadow.”
• He did not closely observe the judge’s face during the alleged incident, rendering clear identification difficult.

Testimonies and Witness Accounts

• Dr. Bala’s daughter, Remedios Bala-Florita, was allowed to testify:
• She initially volunteered to “point to” the person she believed to be Judge Romillo, based on her limited familiarity.
• She later admitted that she had met the person only once and identified him based on a brief encounter in a corridor, not through a formal identification procedure.
• Her identification appeared to be more an assumption than a clear recognition, particularly when juxtaposed with the appearance of the individual seated beside counsel.
• Assistant Fiscal Ernesto Madamba testified:
• He clarified his role as Branch Clerk of Court of Branch II, having been involved in communication regarding Civil Case No. 3336-11.
• He admitted that he was the one who had a verbal exchange with the complainant on the said date, not Judge Romillo.

Subsequent Developments

• In an effort to provide Dr. Bala with another chance to secure legal representation and present additional evidence, a subsequent hearing was set on March 26, 1976.
• Dr. Bala failed to appear on the rescheduled hearing, later explaining by letter that he was unable to secure counsel and had already provided his account in previous declarations.

Findings from the Investigation

• The investigation revealed significant inconsistencies and weaknesses in the complainant’s ability to identify the person he accused of using offensive language.
• Evidence pointed toward a case of mistaken identity, indicating that the individual involved was Assistant Fiscal Ernesto Madamba rather than Judge Romillo.
• Based on these findings, the Investigating Justice recommended the exoneration of the respondent judge.

Issue:

Whether the alleged offensive and insulting behavior attributed to Judge Romillo actually occurred during the hearing on September 25, 1973.

• Examination of the complainant’s account versus the respondent’s verified denial.
• Consideration of the integrity of the identification process given the complainant’s impaired eyesight.

Whether the identification of the alleged offender was reliable and conclusive.

• The credibility of eyewitness testimonies, particularly those of Dr. Bala and his daughter.
• The possibility of mistaken identity, especially involving the identification of Assistant Fiscal Ernesto Madamba.

Whether the procedural due process was observed in allowing the complainant to testify in narrative form and providing subsequent opportunities to strengthen his case.

• The approach taken by the investigating justice in balancing the vulnerable position of the complainant against the evidence presented.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)