A.M. No. 34-MJ - Carbonell vs. Cabading

Case Digest (A.M. No. 34-MJ)

Facts:

Parties and nature of the case

Remberto Carbonell filed an administrative complaint against Municipal Judge Simplicio Cabading of Lamut, Ifugao.
The complaint alleged misconduct and conduct unbecoming a member of the Philippine Bar.

Alleged incident and complainant’s accusations

The complaint alleged that on September 17, 1972, while respondent was under the influence of liquor, respondent inflicted physical injuries on complainant.
The injuries caused complainant’s hospitalization.
Complainant characterized the act as “a disgrace to the officialdom of the country.”

Filing and endorsement for investigation

Complainant filed the complaint with the Secretary of Justice.
The Secretary of Justice endorsed the matter to the District Judge of the Court of First Instance of Ifugao for investigation.

Respondent’s answer and his version of events

Respondent was required to answer and submitted his answer on October 31, 1972.
Respondent generally and specifically denied all material allegations in the letter-complaint.
Respondent denied being under the influence of liquor on September 17, 1972 at about 6:30 in the evening.
Respondent asserted that the incident occurred when he approached Remberto Carbonell at Cabaruan, San Juan, La Union to request Carbonell and his companions to be conducted to Daguing, San Juan, La Union (about 3 kilometers).
Respondent claimed that Carbonell demanded P15.00 for the conduction service and respondent handed Carbonell a P20.00 bill.
Respondent stated that Carbonell demanded change but respondent refused, stating the road was rough and Carbonell had hired the whole jeep.
Respondent alleged that when he was reminded to comply with the contract, Carbonell angrily stopped the jeep, told respondent that if he was miserable Carbonell should get down and walk, and simultaneously picked up a big knot and bolt.
Respondent alleged that Carbonell attempted to hit him with the knot and bolt.
Respondent alleged he was able to parry and that the iron rebounded to Carbonell’s face.
Respondent alleged a struggle ensued and, because Carbonell was very much under the influence of liquor, respondent succeeded in wrestling the iron from him.
Respondent denied having a gun and stated that he had lost his pistol covered by Sp. No. 370645 and that the loss was reported to the Lagawe Philippine Constabulary long before the incident.
Respondent stated San Juan, La Union was his home town and he had no enemies there.
Respondent alleged that the barrio visited was populated by Cabadings and that this meant he had no need for a gun.
Respondent denied threatening to bring back a battalion of NPA dissidents.
Respondent claimed he was a government employee and loyal to the administration of President Marcos, and he stated he had not cooperated with the NPA’s.
Respondent alleged complainant took advantage of the Proclamation of Martial Law to blacken his name and see him punished.
Respondent claimed the incident happened before the Proclamation, but the complaint was filed after September 21, 1972.
Respondent stated complainant was visibly mad for having been hurt by the knot and bolt he tried to hit respondent with.
Respondent’s answer concluded with a request for a formal hearing.

Hearing dates before the District Judge and postponements

The matter was referred to then District Judge Francisco M. Abad, who set the hearing for November 21, 1972.
On November 21, 1972, complainant was absent.
Respondent appeared and gave his version of the incident.
Judge Abad notified complainant that complainant would have an opportunity to present his side on December 28, 1972.
Complainant asked for another date because he was not available.
The next hearing was scheduled for January 26, 1973, with another postponement requested, which led to February 16, 1973.

Denial of further postponement and presentation of evidence for the respondent

There was again a motion for postponement, which Judge Abad denied in an order dated March 6, 1973.
On March 29, 1973, Judge Abad submitted a report stating:

The hearing had been scheduled several times, but complainant and/or complainant’s witnesses did not appear on any occasion.
Only motions to reset the schedule(s) were forwarded to Judge Abad at Lagawe, Ifugao on the ground that complainant filed a motion with the Honorable Secretary of Justice asking for a change of the place of the investigation.
Judge Abad received and adduced evidence through witness Elizabeth Sobremonte and through respondent himself as early as November 29, 1972.
Judge Abad concluded, based on witness Elizabeth Sobremonte’s statements and respondent’s statements, that complainant was the aggressor.
Judge Abad concluded respondent acted only in self-preservation to parry complainant’s attacks.

Complainant’s manifestation of desistance

On April 10, 1973, complainant filed a pleading titled “Manifestation of Desistance.”
In the manifestation, complainant stated:

He was the complaining witness in a case of Less Serious Physical Injuries pending before the Municipal Court of San Juan, La Union.
The administrative case and the criminal case pending before the Municipal Court of San Juan, La Union arose from one and the same incident.
Complainant already desisted from prosecuting the criminal case, and he attached an affidavit of desistance.
In the administrative case, after analyzing the facts and circumstances, complainant became convinced he had no cause of action against respondent.
Complainant stated the incident arose from a mere misunderstanding and misapprehension of facts.
Complainant stated that, at the time of the incident, he had stated respondent was intoxicated, but he realized he could not substantiate that charge.
Complainant executed the statement freely without promise of reward or compensation.
Complainant asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the administrative complaint against respondent.

Supreme Court’s response to desistance and referral for further investigation

The Court did not grant dismissal and issued a resolution dated September 24, 1973.
The Court denied respondent’s motion to dismiss and referred the case to the District Judge of the Court of First Instance of San Fernando, La Union for investigation.
The investigation was directed to ascertain:

the reason why complainant executed the affidavit of desistance;
the status of Criminal Case No. 882, “People vs. Simplicio Cabading,” in the Municipal Court of San Juan, La Union; and
whether to proceed with administrative investigation if warranted by findings.

New District Judge’s report and circumstances discovered

A new District Judge, Angel A. Daquigan, took over from Judge Abad.
Judge Daquigan received the Court’s referral and submitted his report on November 17, 1973.
Judge Daquigan reported that complainant’s move to desist was due to:

complainant’s conviction that the injuries were accidental; and
close relationship between the parties.

Judge Daquigan stated the relationship: the grandmother of complainant was a half sister of the mother of respondent.
Judge Daquigan also reported that the criminal complaint filed in the municipal court of San Juan, La Union arising from the same incident had already been dismissed.
Judge Daquigan expressed conformity with Judge Abad’s conclusions that complainant was the aggressor and respondent only acted under instinct of self-preservation.
Judge Daquigan stated that the dismissal of the criminal case and complainant’s affidavit of desistance could not, in any wise, be attributed to respondent judge.

Court’s final disposition

The Court examined the record and found no sufficient justification for disciplinary action against respondent.
The Court held the quantum of proof required to impose any penalty on a member of the judiciary was not met.
The Court recognized that complainant had voluntarily desisted.
The Court concluded there was nothing in the record, aside from unsubstantiated allegations in the complaint, that could impute truly reprehensible conduct to respondent.
The Court dismissed the administrative complaint against Municipal Judge Simplicio Cabading.
The Court ordered that a copy of the resolution be spread on respondent’s record.

Issues:

Whether respondent Municipal Judge Simplicio Cabading should be subjected to disciplinary action for alleged misconduct and conduct unbecoming a member of the Philippine Bar

Whether the evidence adduced during investigation established, to the required quantum, that respondent inflicted injuries while under the influence of liquor and acted in the manner alleged by complainant.
Whether respondent’s alleged actions were proven, rather than remaining unsupported allegations, to warrant the imposition of any penalty on a member of the judiciary.
Whether the complainant’s voluntary desistance and the dismissal of the related criminal case affected the administrative liability.

Whether complainant’s manifestation of desistance warranted dismissal or required further inquiry

Whether there was sufficient justification for dismissal based on complainant’s affidavit of desistance.
Whether the affidavit of desistance was motivated by factors attributable to respondent judge.
Whether the status and outcome of the related criminal case were relevant to the administrative determination.

Ruling:

(Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

(Subscriber-Only)

Unlock Full Case Digest

Supreme Court E-Library

Case Digest (A.M. No. 34-MJ)
Concise

Facts:

Case Digest (A.M. No. 34-MJ)

Facts:

Issues:

Ruling:

Ratio:

Case Digest (A.M. No. 34-MJ) Concise

Facts:

Case Digest (A.M. No. 34-MJ)

Facts:

Issues:

Ruling:

Ratio:

Case Digest (A.M. No. 34-MJ)
Concise