Facts:

In the administrative case A. M. No. 237-MJ, Alpio Balleza filed a complaint against Municipal Judge Alfredo Bolinas from Banate, Iloilo. The incident arose from a hearing concerning an unlawful detainer action where Balleza, the defendant, failed to appear. His absence was attributed to his belief that the scheduled hearing would be postponed. Despite his expectation, Judge Bolinas proceeded with the trial, arguing that a motion for postponement had only been filed after the trial had already occurred. The judge noted that it was within his discretion to deny such a motion and emphasized that a litigant should not assume that a motion would be granted automatically.

To provide context, the complainant claimed he was deprived of his day in court because the motion for postponement was not taken into account, while the plaintiff and his counsel appeared in case the motion was denied. Upon investigation, the Acting Judicial Consultant rev

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Complainant: Alpio Balleza filed an administrative complaint alleging a violation of his right to a fair hearing.
• Respondent: Municipal Judge Alfredo Bolinas of Banate, Iloilo, was the subject of the complaint.
• Nature of the Complaint:
• It centered on an unlawful detainer action where complainant, who was a defendant, did not appear at trial.
• Complainant explained his nonappearance on the belief that the hearing would be postponed pursuant to a motion, which he expected would be granted.

Explanation Rendered by the Respondent

• Judge Bolinas’ Rebuttal:
• He asserted that the motion for postponement was submitted only after the trial had commenced.
• He maintained that the decision to grant a postponement is within the sound discretion of the trial judge.
• He emphasized that litigants should not assume an automatically favorable ruling on such motions.
• Affirmation of Good Faith:
• Judge Bolinas noted that the prevailing party was unrelated to him.
• He pointed out that the complainant was, in fact, a “close friend and a [distant relative],” indirectly reinforcing his impartial conduct.

Findings of the Acting Judicial Consultant

• Investigation and Memorandum:
• The case was referred to the Acting Judicial Consultant, who meticulously reviewed the circumstances.
• The memorandum observed that the alleged denial of a postponement did not warrant the claim of being deprived of a day in court.
• Observations Noted:
• Multiple postponements had occurred in the case’s history, indicating a recognized pattern of scheduling adjustments.
• Even after the motion for postponement, both the plaintiff and his counsel appeared at the hearing “just in case” the motion would be denied.
• The issue raised was concurrently pending on appeal before the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, suggesting that any adverse ruling could be revisited.
• Recommendation:
• The memorandum recommended the dismissal of the administrative complaint for lack of merit.
• It underscored the notion that neither party was unjustly prejudiced by the trial’s conduct.

Institutional and Procedural Considerations

• Upholding the Right to Petition:
• The Tribunal recognized the need to entertain even charges that might seem trivial in order to give full effect to the constitutional right to petition.
• Assurance to the Public:
• Dismissing the complaint served not only as relief to both the complainant and the respondent but also as a reassurance to the public that complaints against members of the bench are neither neglected nor minimized.

Issue:

Whether the conduct of the respondent in proceeding with the unlawful detainer case, in the absence of the complainant, violated the complainant’s right to be heard.

• Did the absence of the complainant at the hearing, based on his expectation of a postponement, materially affect his due process rights?
• Was the timing of the motion for postponement (filed after the trial began) a sufficient justification for proceeding without the complainant?

Whether Judge Bolinas exceeded his discretionary powers by denying or neglecting to act favorably on the motion for postponement.

• Can a judicial decision based on discretion be held as a wrongful act if it diverges from a litigant’s expectations?
• Should the inherent discretion of the judge in scheduling decisions be subject to administrative scrutiny or intervention?

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)