Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-99-1508)
Facts:
Flaviano B. Cortes v. Judge Segundo B. Catral, A.M. No. RTJ-99-1508, December 15, 1999, the Supreme Court En Banc, Purisima, J., writing for the Court.Complainant Flaviano B. Cortes, a private citizen and taxpayer of Aparri, Cagayan, filed two letter-complaints against respondent Judge Segundo B. Catral charging him with Grave Misconduct (dereliction of duty, abuse of authority) and Gross Ignorance of the Law. The first complaint, based on an official report by Col. Enrique B. Galang, Jr., alleged that on January 26, 1996 police investigators presented applications for search warrants to Judge Catral for several persons operating proscribed video carrera machines allegedly for Julio “Bong” Decierto, who was Judge Catral’s nephew. Complainant alleged Judge Catral refused to act on the applications, improperly referred the applicants to a municipal trial court judge, and thereby caused delay that frustrated the police operation; Cortes further alleged that cases against Decierto were repeatedly raffled to Judge Catral’s sala.
In the second complaint, Cortes alleged that a petition for letters of administration filed by Mrs. Lilia Lee (for the estate of Bondy Lee) was assigned to Judge Catral without raffle and without required publication and notice to creditors and heirs, in violation of the Rules of Court.
Respondent denied knowledge of the search-warrant applications and produced affidavits from his Clerk of Court and the Buguey MTC presiding judge and clerk confirming his presence in Buguey on January 26, 1996. Police investigator SPO2 Jonathan W. Santos testified that the clerk of court informed them the judge was in Buguey and that they were directed to Vice Executive Judge Benedicto Paz, who refused to act because the matters had not been raffled. As to the Lee petition, respondent produced a Certification and an Order showing a special raffle pursuant to Supreme Court Circular No. 36-96, and newspaper clippings evidencing publication under Section 3, Rule 79 in relation to Sections 3 and 4 of Rule 76 of the Rules of Court.
Complainant replied with court orders and other records showing Judge Catral’s involvement in proceedings related to his nephew, notably entries in Criminal Case No. 6563 (Criminal Case No. II-6563), including orders affecting bail and a denial of a motion for issuance of a warrant of arrest; a Supreme Court resolution on transfer of venue was also cited. After receiving respondent’s comment, the Supreme Court referred the matter to the Court of Appeals for investigation, report and recommendation.
On January 12, 1998, Justice Jainal D. Rasul of the Court of Appeals, after hearing, found Judge Catral guilty of Grave Misconduct and recommended suspension without pay for at least six months. The Supreme Court, after examining the evidence and records and applying Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court and relevant precedents, upheld the Court of Appeals report, found respondent guilty of Grave Misconduct as to his participation in matters involving his nephew but dismissed the gross ignorance charge concerning the letters of administration for lack of proof. Judge Catral had availed of optional retirement...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did Judge Segundo B. Catral commit Grave Misconduct by participating in and acting upon cases involving his nephew and by his alleged refusal to act on search-warrant applications?
- Did Judge Catral commit Gross Ignorance of the Law by assigning and acting upon Mrs. Lilia Lee’s petition for letters of administration without raffle, publication, and n...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)