Case Digest (A.M. No. MTJ-93-818)
Facts:
The case involves Enriquito Cabilao and Ronald Mart Dayot, who served as the Area Sales Director and Territory Sales Manager, respectively, for Southeastern Mindanao of La Tondena, Inc. On November 27, 1992, they attended a hearing in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) presided over by Judge Agustin T. Sardido in Norala, T'boli, South Cotabato. The hearing was related to Criminal Case No. 1857 for Grave Oral Defamation, which had been filed against Cabilao by Rolando Parcon, a former employee of La Tondena, Inc., who had been dismissed for dishonesty. Before the session began, Judge Sardido inquired about the possibility of an amicable settlement, to which Cabilao responded that he could not discuss the matter as his counsel was absent. When the case was called, Cabilao requested a postponement, which the judge granted. However, as they exited the courtroom, Cabilao and Dayot were served with a Warrant of Arrest issued by Judge Sardido in connection with another com...
Case Digest (A.M. No. MTJ-93-818)
Facts:
Background of the Parties
- Complainants Enriquito Cabilao and Ronald Mart Dayot were the Area Sales Director and Territory Sales Manager, respectively, for Southeastern Mindanao of La Tondena, Inc.
- They were involved in a criminal case for Grave Oral Defamation (Criminal Case No. 1857) filed by Rolando Parcon, a dismissed employee of La Tondena, Inc.
Incident in the Courtroom
- On November 27, 1992, complainants attended a hearing for the defamation case in the courtroom of respondent Judge Agustin T. Sardido in Norala, South Cotabato.
- Before the hearing, Judge Sardido asked Cabilao if the defamation case could be settled amicably. Cabilao declined, citing the absence of his counsel.
- The hearing was postponed upon Cabilao’s request.
Issuance of the Warrant of Arrest
- As complainants were leaving the courtroom, they were served with a Warrant of Arrest issued by Judge Sardido in connection with a separate Robbery case (Criminal Case No. 1917) filed by Rolando Parcon.
- The warrant required a bail of P16,000.00. Complainants had to borrow the amount to avoid detention over a long weekend.
Allegations Against the Judge
- Complainants accused Judge Sardido of:
- Issuing the warrant without conducting a proper preliminary examination in writing and under oath, as required by Section 6, Rule 112 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.
- Failing to provide them with copies of the complaint and affidavit or an opportunity to file counter-affidavits.
- Acting with grave ignorance of the law, gross misconduct, and abuse of discretion.
Judge’s Defense
- Judge Sardido admitted he did not conduct the preliminary examination in writing but claimed he conducted it orally twice (on November 26 and 27, 1992) and was satisfied that probable cause existed.
- He cited overwork as the reason for not following the proper procedure, as he was handling multiple courts.
Investigation and Findings
- The Office of the Court Administrator recommended a fine of P5,000.00 and a stern warning.
- Complainants later withdrew their complaint due to work constraints, but the Court proceeded with the investigation.
- The investigating judge found that Judge Sardido failed to comply with the procedural requirements for issuing a warrant of arrest.
Issue:
- Whether Judge Sardido acted with grave ignorance of the law and gross misconduct in issuing the warrant of arrest without conducting a proper preliminary examination.
- Whether the warrant of arrest was issued in violation of the constitutional and procedural safeguards for the protection of individual liberty.
- Whether the desistance of the complainants affects the administrative liability of the judge.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court found Judge Agustin T. Sardido guilty of gross ignorance of the law and grave abuse of discretion in issuing the warrant of arrest. The Court imposed a fine of P5,000.00 with a stern warning that repetition of the same or similar acts would be dealt with more severely.
Ratio:
- (Unlock)