Title
Bartolome vs. De Borja
Case
A.M. No. 1096-CFI, 1114-CFI
Decision Date
May 31, 1976
Judge de Borja faced complaints for alleged misconduct, including replaying a taped conversation and issuing arrest warrants. The Supreme Court dismissed both, ruling his actions were within judicial discretion and lacked evidence of misconduct.
Font Size:

Case Digest (A.M. No. 1096-CFI, 1114-CFI)

Facts:

The case involves two administrative complaints filed against respondent Judge Juan de Borja of the Court of First Instance of Manila.

Rolando Bartolome’s Complaint
Rolando Bartolome, a labor regulation officer, accused Judge de Borja of oppression, deliberate violation of the Anti-Wire Tapping Act, gross ignorance of the law, and grave misconduct. The complaint stemmed from a case where Judge de Borja allowed the replaying of a taped telephone conversation between Bartolome and Adelina Velasco, who had been found guilty of violating the Minimum Wage Law. The tape was played during proceedings for a petition for prohibition and mandamus filed by Velasco against the Department of Labor. Bartolome argued that the replaying of the tape violated his rights and the Anti-Wire Tapping Act.

Francisco Grego’s Complaint
Francisco Grego, a defendant in a libel case presided over by Judge de Borja, accused the judge of serious misconduct, oppression, and arbitrariness. Grego alleged that the judge issued arrest warrants against him for failing to appear in court on multiple occasions, despite his valid reasons (e.g., illness). Grego also claimed the judge used intemperate language. Grego sought to transfer his case to another court but was denied.

Issue:

  1. Whether Judge Juan de Borja’s actions in allowing the replay of the taped conversation violated the Anti-Wire Tapping Act and constituted oppression, gross ignorance of the law, and grave misconduct.
  2. Whether Judge de Borja’s handling of Francisco Grego’s libel case, including issuing arrest warrants and using strong language, amounted to serious misconduct and arbitrariness.
  3. Whether the complaints against Judge de Borja warrant disciplinary action or his removal from office.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court dismissed both complaints for lack of merit. The Court found no evidence of serious misconduct, inefficiency, or gross ignorance of the law on the part of Judge de Borja.

Ratio:

  1. On the Replay of the Tape Recording

    • Judge de Borja did not violate the Anti-Wire Tapping Act because the recording was made by one of the parties to the conversation (Adelina Velasco), and its use as evidence in court is allowed under the law.
    • There was no oppression or grave misconduct. The judge acted within his discretion in allowing the tape as evidence, especially since the opposing counsel did not object.
  2. On the Handling of Francisco Grego’s Case

    • Judge de Borja’s issuance of arrest warrants was justified given Grego’s repeated failure to appear in court despite valid reasons. This was not arbitrary or oppressive but consistent with procedural rules.
    • The use of strong language by the judge, while perhaps stern, did not amount to serious misconduct, especially in light of Grego’s attempts to delay proceedings.
  3. On Administrative Charges Against Judges

    • Administrative charges must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and complainants failed to meet this standard.
    • Judges are entitled to exercise discretion, and even if their decisions are later found to be mistaken, they cannot be held administratively liable for errors of judgment.
    • The Court emphasized the importance of judicial independence and the need for judges to act dispassionately, while acknowledging that occasional displays of frustration are understandable given the burdens of their role.


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.