Facts:

The case is entitled A.M. No. MTJ-00-1323, involving a complaint filed by Judge Pedro B. Cabatingan Sr. (ret.) against Judge Celso A. Arcueno of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Cataingan, Masbate. The administrative complaint, dated September 25, 2001, accused Judge Arcueno of gross ignorance of the law. The events leading to the complaint began with a preliminary investigation concerning a complaint for Illegal Fishing, docketed as Criminal Case No. 4877-PVC, where Judge Arcueno, after finding probable cause, issued a warrant of arrest for the accused, setting bail at P50,000 for each. Benito Bucado, one of the accused, opted to post a property bond.

However, Judge Arcueno allegedly refused to accept the posted bail bond, claiming he had lost jurisdiction over the case after forwarding the records to the Office of the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor for review. The judge insisted on adhering to procedural rules, stating that the tax declaration for the property coll

...

Facts:

Parties and Nature of the Case

• Complainant: Judge Pedro B. Cabatingan Sr. (retired), who filed an administrative complaint against a fellow judge.
• Respondent: Judge Celso A. Arcueno of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Cataingan, Masbate.
• Allegation: The respondent is charged with gross ignorance of the law for refusing to approve a bail bond in a criminal case, in violation of Section 17, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court.

Chronology and Detailed Procedural Background

• Initiation of Criminal Proceedings
• A complaint for Illegal Fishing was filed in respondent’s court for preliminary investigation and was docketed as Criminal Case No. 4877-PVC.
• Upon finding a prima facie case, respondent issued a warrant of arrest and fixed bail at ₱50,000 for each of the accused, including Benito Bucado.
• Execution and Subsequent Refusal of Bail Bond
• Benito Bucado, one of the accused, posted a property bond as bail.
• Respondent allegedly refused to accept the bail bond on two grounds:
• Belief that jurisdiction was lost because the case records had already been forwarded to the Office of the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor for review.
• Lack of attachment of the tax declaration to the bail bond form, which was required to establish proof of ownership of the property offered as bond.
• Respondent’s Subsequent Action and Manifestations
• Later, on November 20, 1998, despite his earlier refusal, the respondent approved the bail bond and ordered the release of the accused.
• In his Manifestation with Motion to Dismiss filed on October 30, 2000, respondent alternated his justification by claiming that complainant (who also held notarial duties) had grossly violated Section 10 of Rule 114 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure by arrogating judicial authority.
• Prior to the respondent’s latest manifestation, on September 15, 1998, an order had been issued requiring the accused to submit their counter-affidavits or post bail for temporary liberty; failure to comply led to the issuance of a resolution on October 13, 1998, forwarding the case to the RTC for review.
• Administrative Handling of the Complaint
• On September 18, 2000, the Third Division of the court docketed the complaint as an administrative matter and required the parties to manifest within twenty (20) days.
• Respondent did file his Manifestation with Motion to Dismiss, while complainant failed to submit his within the prescribed period, resulting in its waiver.
• The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) reviewed the matter in its Memorandum dated September 25, 2001, ultimately reporting that the respondent’s refusal to approve the bail bond exhibited gross ignorance of the rules of procedure.

Prior Disciplinary History and Context

• The respondent had been previously sanctioned in a similar case (Gimeno v. Arcueno Sr.) for ignorance of the law when he granted bail in a case involving a capital offense, where he was fined ₱5,000 and warned of harsher penalties for future violations.
• His persistent disregard for proper procedure, despite previous sanctions, underscores the repetitive nature of the infraction.

Issue:

Jurisdiction and Procedural Authority

• Whether Judge Celso A. Arcueno had the authority to approve the bail bond despite having forwarded the case records to the Office of the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor for review.
• Whether the mere transmission of the case for review constituted a forfeiture of his jurisdiction to grant bail.

Nature and Extent of the Alleged Error

• Whether the respondent’s refusal to approve the bail bond, based on his interpretation of procedural requirements (including the alleged lack of a tax declaration attached to the bond form), amounts to gross ignorance of the law.
• Whether his alternate justification—that complainant violated Section 10 of Rule 114 by overstepping the bounds of his authority as a notary public—holds merit or is merely an afterthought to justify his initial erroneous action.

Judicial Accountability and Repeated Misconduct

• Whether the repeated infraction, in light of his previous sanction for a similar act, warrants a heavier administrative penalty.
• How the integrity of judicial conduct and adherence to prescribed legal procedures must be maintained to safeguard public confidence in the legal system.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)