Facts:

This case involves Atty. Hugolino V. Balayon, Jr. as the petitioner against Judge Gaydifredo O. Ocampo, the respondent, concerning allegations of gross ignorance of the law and grave misconduct. Atty. Balayon filed a letter-complaint on October 9, 1991, outlining eight separate complaints against Judge Ocampo, concerning various cases adjudicated in the Metropolitan Trial Court at Tupi, South Cotabato during his tenure. The complaints included instances of improperly issued warrants, unauthorized notarizations, and questionable evidential rulings. For instance, he alleged that Judge Ocampo wrongfully intervened in a dispute by writing a letter to a police commander, which he perceived as a misuse of judicial power. Other complaints pertained to the illegal issuance of search and arrest warrants, inappropriate handling of court procedures regarding witnesses, unwarranted dismissal of theft charges, and failure to uphold the proper standards of evidence and due process.

In his def

...

Facts:

First Complaint

• Atty. Hugolino V. Balayon, Jr. filed a letter-complaint dated October 9, 1991 against Judge Gaydifredo O. Ocampo of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC), Tupi, South Cotabato.
• The complaint charged the judge with gross ignorance of the law and grave misconduct for activities allegedly amounting to the private practice of law.
• The issue arose when Ronilo Hijastro sought police assistance regarding a dispute with Romeo Panes over the possession of sacks of copra.
• Respondent Judge wrote a letter on December 7, 1989, to Lt. Sulam, the Police Station Commander, advising that Mr. Hijastro be given assistance; he also mentioned details about the legitimacy of Romeo Panes’ claim on the property and his produce.
• Complainant alleged that in so doing the judge impropriately interfered by potentially gaining from a share in the proceeds from the sale of the copra.
• In his comment, the judge admitted writing the letter but denied any ulterior motive, stating that he merely advised Hijastro to seek legal counsel and acted in good faith.

Second Complaint

• In Criminal Case No. 5016 (“People vs. Mario Sanso, Fernando Manggubat and Tony Joven”), a complaint for Qualified Theft was filed on January 4, 1990.
• Lt. Sulam, acting on sworn statements from witness Mario Lim, sought the issuance of a search warrant, which the judge executed after taking the affidavits.
• The warrant led to the seizure of two piglets from Tony Joven’s backyard and his subsequent arrest.
• After Tony Joven’s release on bail, Atty. Balayon filed an Urgent Motion to Quash the search warrant and warrant of arrest, alleging a lack of personal knowledge of the facts by the affiants.
• On February 16, 1990, the judge annulled the search warrant but maintained the arrest warrant, justifying the decision by emphasizing the inherent power to correct procedural imperfections.

Third Complaint

• A Criminal Complaint for Theft, Criminal Case No. 5123, was filed on December 4, 1990, alleging that pineapples belonging to the DOLEFIL plantation were stolen.
• Although the judge found probable cause based on the sworn statements of two prosecution witnesses, he conducted a summary clarificatory examination on December 20, 1990.
• Subsequently, a warrant of arrest was issued against Jose Catapang (one of the accused), with the other accused, Norberto Solis, remaining at large.
• In the following proceedings, the arrest led to various motions including a request for postponement and a motion to dismiss filed by the complainant, asserting that the arrest was based on mere suspicion rather than personal knowledge of the facts.
• The submission of these applications and the fact that this was the second complaint regarding the issuance of such warrants without personal knowledge raised serious concerns about the judge’s adherence to legal standards.

Fourth Complaint

• The complaint alleged that in a criminal case for Slight Physical Injuries (People vs. Esther Ante, Criminal Case No. 5226), the judge admitted a witness to testify without the witness having previously submitted his affidavit as required under Section 14 of the Rules on Summary Procedure.
• Citing earlier precedents where strict compliance was demanded, complainant argued that the witness’s testimony was improper and prejudicial.
• In his comment, the judge relied on the ruling in Orino vs. Judge Gervasio, maintaining that even in the absence of a prior affidavit, a witness could be called to offer testimony on relevant factual issues.

Fifth Complaint

• The complaint charged the judge with having continuously notarized documents unrelated to his official judicial functions, thus engaging in unauthorized extra-judicial practice.
• It was alleged that despite the presence of two duly commissioned notaries public in Tupi, the judge notarized nine private documents (six in 1990 and three in 1991) for which fees were collected and remitted to the Government.
• The unauthorized notarizations were alleged to be in contravention of the Resolution of the Court En Banc dated December 19, 1989 and the 1989 Code of Judicial Conduct which prohibits private practice of law by judges.
• The judge defended himself by stating that the notarizations were done due to the unavailability of notaries public and the urgent need of the parties involved.

Sixth Complaint

• A Criminal Complaint for grave threats was filed on May 15, 1989 concerning Joe Maliang.
• The judge rendered a decision on October 4, 1989 convicting the accused of light threats under Article 285, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code.
• However, following an appeal to the Regional Trial Court, the accused was acquitted on July 19, 1990 due to reasonable doubt.
• Complainant asserted that the reversal evidenced the judge’s lack of proper appreciation of evidence and personal bias in decision-making.
• The judge contended that the error was a mere error in judgment without any indication of malice or bad faith.

Seventh Complaint

• A letter-complaint dated July 2, 1991, filed by Rodolfo L. Lizada (Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer), charged theft involving the alleged illegal taking of galvanized iron roofing sheets from a government warehouse.
• An ocular inspection on July 17, 1991 confirmed that the roofings were missing and, notably, that a significant number of used roofing sheets were found in the premises of the accused, Feliciano Angeles.
• The inspection revealed conflicting statements regarding the number of sheets used by the accused’s family.
• On August 6, 1991, the judge dismissed the case, stating that the elements for theft—particularly the intent to gain—were not satisfactorily established, thereby relegating the matter to a civil remedy.
• Complainant charged that the dismissal was improper, partly influenced by personal connections, and that the judge had abused his discretion in dismissing a prima facie case of theft.

Eighth Complaint

• In Criminal Case No. 5180 (“People vs. Julio Relativo and Miller Estigoy”), a complaint for theft involving the stealing of coconut trees was filed.
• After the prosecution rested its case, instead of presenting evidence, the defense (through complainant) filed a Demurrer to the Evidence on June 4, 1991, arguing that the private complainant lacked legal capacity to sue due to a failure to redeem the land.
• The prosecution opposed the demurrer, leading the judge to deny the motion on June 18, 1991.
• Subsequent motions for reconsideration were filed by the complainant and reviewed, but the judge ultimately sustained his initial order denying the demurrer.
• The complainant charged that this denial amounted to gross ignorance of the law and/or grave misconduct.

Issue:

• Whether the actions of the respondent Judge in writing a letter to the police station commander—allegedly aiding a private dispute—constituted gross ignorance of the law and grave misconduct.
• Whether the issuance and subsequent partial annulment of the search warrant and arrest warrant in Criminal Case No. 5016 was improper due to a lack of personal knowledge by the affiants.
• Whether the summary clarificatory measures and the subsequent issuance of a warrant in Criminal Case No. 5123 were based on sufficient personal knowledge and proper legal procedure.
• Whether allowing a witness to testify without a prior affidavit, as in People vs. Esther Ante, violates the Rules on Summary Procedure and reflects ignorance of the law.
• Whether the unauthorized notarization of nine private documents by the judge, despite the availability of other notaries public, constitutes an abuse of judicial functions and extra-judicial practice.
• Whether the reversal of the conviction in the grave threats case, attributed to an error in the appreciation of evidence, demonstrates judicial incompetence or mere error in judgment.
• Whether the dismissal of the theft case involving galvanized iron roofings was an abuse of judicial discretion and a failure to properly apply the elements of the crime of theft.
• Whether the denial of the Demurrer to the Evidence in Criminal Case No. 5180 was a manifestation of gross ignorance of the law or a proper exercise of judicial discretion.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

First Complaint

• The respondent Judge was not found guilty of gross ignorance of the law in writing the police assistance letter, though he was admonished under Canon 2 of the 1989 Code of Judicial Conduct to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

Second Complaint

• The issuance of the search warrant and the arrest warrant in Criminal Case No. 5016 was upheld as a lawful exercise of judicial duty, with the exception that the search warrant was rightfully annulled due to failure in satisfying the requirement of personal knowledge.

Third Complaint

• The complaint was not dismissed outright; rather, the judge was admonished to exercise greater prudence and circumspection in issuing warrants that require personal knowledge to avoid violating constitutional rights.

Fourth Complaint

• The complaint was dismissed as the allowance of a witness’s testimony, despite the absence of a prior affidavit, was held to be within the permissible bounds of the Rules on Summary Procedure based on existing jurisprudence.

Fifth Complaint

• For the unauthorized notarization of nine private documents, the respondent Judge was fined TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10,000.00) and warned that further similar acts would warrant a more severe sanction.

Sixth Complaint

• The complaint was dismissed. The reversal of the conviction on appeal, due to reasonable doubt, did not evidence bad faith or a lack of proper appreciation of evidence by the judge, but was deemed a mere error in judgment.

Seventh Complaint

• The judge’s dismissal of the theft case was held improper given the presence of evidence supporting the element of intent to gain.

• As a result, the judge was admonished to exercise more diligence in the performance of his duties as a municipal judge.

Eighth Complaint

...continue reading