A.M. No. MTJ-03-1500 - Dadula vs. Ginete

Leonardo P. Dadula, the complainant, filed a letter complaint dated January 15, 1998, against several personnel of the lower courts in Masbate.
The respondents include Judge Manuel V. Ginete of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC), Masbate; Clerk of Court Atty. Dioscoro V. Conag; and Process Server Rolly Almoradie of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 45, Masbate.
The complaint charged the respondents with bias, partiality, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of court service.

Dadula alleged irregularities in court scheduling connected with the anti-graft and corrupt practices cases involving Hilda Revil, her children (Arturo and Amanda Revil), and other relatives.
After having filed graft charges with the Ombudsman against the aforementioned parties, Dadula claimed that facial discrepancies emerged in court calendars when his case was inadvertently omitted on November 12, 1997.
Complainant and his counsel, Atty. Makilito B. Mahinay, personally appeared in court that day only to discover that their criminal cases (Criminal Cases Nos. 18747 to 18751) were missing from the docket.
Atty. Mahinay requested the inclusion of the cases in the calendar while the Presiding Judge was still calling other cases; however, the request was allegedly refused by court personnel.
The complainant later noted that accused Hilda Revil and Atty. Arturo Revil had already been present in court earlier in the day, raising suspicions of collusion and deliberate exclusion.

Complainant’s counsel filed a formal protest with Clerk Atty. Conag and copied the Court Administrator, seeking an explanation for the scheduling error.
Concurrently, Atty. Arturo Revil, previously dropped by the Ombudsman, filed a perjury case (Criminal Case No. 10801) against the complainant based on his sworn statement before the Ombudsman.
Dadula contended that Judge Ginete issued a warrant for his arrest without first conducting a personal examination on him and his witnesses as required under the Constitution.
A further controversy arose when it was discovered that the TSN (transcript of stenographic notes) for the alleged personal examination was absent initially, and only later a copy of the TSN for Atty. Revil’s examination was inserted into the case records.
Complainant executed a bond of P12,000.00 for his temporary liberty and alleged a conspiracy to whitewash the outcomes of the graft cases among the RTC personnel and respondent Judge Ginete, who was said to be closely associated with Atty. Revil.

On September 29, 2000, the Court Administrator issued an initial report addressing:

The request for venue transfer of the graft cases;
The need to assign a state prosecutor for the case;
The issue regarding disqualification of Judge Ginete; and
The referral of the administrative complaint against Atty. Revil to the Office of the Bar Confidant.

The letter from Atty. Mahinay regarding the non-inclusion in the court calendar was referred to Executive Judge Ricardo M. Merdegia for appropriate action.
Judge Merdegia conducted an inquiry and produced a report wherein:

It was revealed that a clerical error, caused by Process Server Rolly Almoradie inadvertently deleting the cases from the calendar, was at the heart of the scheduling issue.
Affidavits from multiple court personnel, including stenographic reporters and an interpreter, corroborated that Atty. Mahinay had not been present when the cases were initially called.
The report recommended that the protest letter be expunged from the criminal case records for its untruthfulness.

Further, separate comments and affidavits by the complainant and his counsel contested Judge Merdegia’s findings regarding the alleged lateness of Atty. Mahinay.
Respondents subsequently filed their comments:

Respondent Conag admitted the calendaring error but denied any deliberate act of omission on his part, supporting his account with affidavits.
Process Server Almoradie maintained that his error was an honest mistake and later claimed that his administrative case became moot upon his retirement.

Respondent Judge Ginete asserted that he had properly conducted a clarificatory examination of Atty. Revil on January 15, 1997, and denied any misconduct or delay in resolving the motion to quash the warrant of arrest.
The administrative case was eventually referred by the OCA to Judge Maximino R. Ables, who recommended its dismissal based on the findings that no infraction was committed by the respondents, and that the evidence did not substantiate claims of judicial misconduct or conspiracy.

Despite various motions and petitions (including a petition for certiorari filed by the complainant), the trial courts consistently dismissed the claims for lack of merit.
Multiple orders and resolutions were issued, including those denying motions to quash the warrant of arrest and motions for reconsideration.
The administrative proceedings ultimately led to the dismissal of the complaint against Process Server Almoradie and the referral and subsequent dismissal of the charges against Judge Ginete and Clerk Conag on the ground of insufficient evidence and lack of merit.

Whether the warrant of arrest issued against the complainant was lawfully executed without a prior personal examination of the complainant and his witnesses, in conformity with the constitutional mandate and Rule 112 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.
Whether the omission of Criminal Cases Nos. 18747 to 18751 from the court calendar on November 12, 1997, was the result of a mere clerical error or amounted to deliberate misconduct by the respondent Clerk of Court, Atty. Conag.
Whether the conduct of Judge Ginete, particularly his alleged delay and the manner in which he handled the case (including the insertion of the TSN after the fact), constitutes bias, partiality, or any adjudicatory misconduct.
Whether the perjury case and the subsequent actions taken by Judge Ginete fall within the ambit of judicial discretion, or if they should have been referred to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor for an independent finding of probable cause.
Whether the administrative complaint, in light of the various affidavits and records, provides sufficient evidence to demonstrate a conspiracy to whitewash the anti-graft case and to subject judicial personnel to administrative sanctions.