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

Complainant Remberto Carbonell alleged that on September 17, 1972, Municipal Judge Simplicio Cabading, while allegedly under the influence of liquor, caused him physical injuries.
The incident reportedly occurred in Cabaruan, San Juan, La Union, where a dispute over transportation fare escalated into a physical confrontation.
According to the complaint, the judge allegedly used a “big knot and bolt” as a weapon, striking Carbonell, who was subsequently hospitalized.
Carbonell’s allegations characterized the judge’s conduct as “a disgrace to the officialdom of the country.”

The complaint was filed with the Secretary of Justice and was subsequently endorsed to the District Judge of the Court of First Instance of Ifugao for investigation.
Respondent Judge Cabading answered the complaint on October 31, 1972, denying all material allegations and providing his own version of events, which included:

A recount of the transaction with a jeep driver to secure transportation for himself and his companions.
An account of a verbal dispute over the fare change that escalated when the driver became agitated, leading to the incident with the bolt.
A denial of possessing a firearm, asserting that a lost pistol had previously been reported to the Lagawe Philippine Constabulary.
A refutation of claims implicating him in any threat involving a battalion of NPA dissidents, emphasizing his loyalty to President Marcos and his long-standing service as a municipal judge.

Initial hearing by District Judge Francisco M. Abad on November 21, 1972, during which only the respondent appeared.
A series of postponements followed upon complainant’s request and subsequent rescheduling (December 28, 1972; January 26, 1973; February 16, 1973) until Judge Abad, in his March 29, 1973 report, observed the consistent absence of the complainant and his witnesses.

On April 10, 1973, the complainant executed a “Manifestation of Desistance” wherein he:

Acknowledged that the administrative case and a related criminal case (pending in the Municipal Court of San Juan, La Union) stemmed from a single incident.
Desisted from the criminal prosecution by filing an affidavit of desistance, citing his realization that the charge of intoxication could not be substantiated and characterizing the incident as a mere misunderstanding.
Requested the dismissal of the administrative complaint against Judge Cabading.

Testimony by Elizabeth Sobremonte, who served as a witness for the respondent.
The respondent’s own detailed account, which suggested that the confrontational incident was a reflex act of self-preservation in response to an attack initiated by the complainant.

Despite the complainant’s withdrawal in the criminal case, the administrative process continued, involving further inquiries into the circumstances surrounding the desistance.
A new District Judge, Angel A. Daquigan, took over the investigation:

His report corroborated Judge Abad’s conclusions that the complainant had instigated the altercation, thereby positioning the respondent’s act as one of self-defense.
The report also highlighted the close personal relationship between the parties (the complainant’s grandmother being a half-sister to the respondent’s mother), which further undermined the credibility of the aggressive allegations.
He noted that the criminal complaint in the Municipal Court of San Juan, La Union had been dismissed and that the execution of the affidavit of desistance should not be attributed to any misconduct by Judge Cabading.

Denied the respondent’s motion to dismiss the case on procedural grounds.
Referred the matter to the District Judge of the Court of First Instance of San Fernando, La Union for further investigation regarding the complainant’s affidavit of desistance and the status of the related criminal case.

Ultimately, on the basis of the findings which pointed to insufficient evidence and the voluntary desistance by the complainant, the administrative complaint against Judge Cabading was dismissed.
The resolution was to be permanently noted on the judge’s record, clearing him of the charge of misconduct.

Whether the allegations against Municipal Judge Simplicio Cabading—specifically that he, while intoxicated, inflicted physical injuries on Remberto Carbonell—were backed by sufficient and credible evidence to warrant disciplinary action.
Whether the conduct attributed to the judge constituted misconduct warranting administrative sanction, considering the nature of his actions during a volatile encounter.
The effect of the complainant’s subsequent “Manifestation of Desistance” and the dismissal of the related criminal case on the viability of the administrative proceeding.
Whether the witness testimony and the respondent’s own account established that his actions were merely a reflex of self-preservation rather than misconduct.