Case Digest (A.M. No. MTJ-87-123, MTJ-88-141)
Facts:
Mercedita G. Lorenzo v. Judge Primo L. Marquez; National Bureau of Investigation v. Judge Primo L. Marquez, Adm. Matter Nos. MTJ-87-123 and MTJ-88-141, 245 Phil. 503, June 27, 1988, the Supreme Court En Banc, Per Curiam. Complainants were Mercedita G. Lorenzo (a municipal court aide) and the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI); respondent was Judge Primo L. Marquez, presiding judge of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Sariaya, Quezon. The consolidated administrative complaints charged Marquez with (1) harassment for failing to indorse Lorenzo’s reappointment; (2) violation of Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court for presiding over and deciding Civil Case No. 1202 (Kilusang Bayan Pampananalapi ng Sariaya v. Gilda Balid, et al.) when he had formerly acted as counsel for the plaintiff; and (3) illegal issuance of a subpoena requiring prison inmate Jose D. Obosa of the National Bilibid Prisons (NBP) to appear before him despite no proper justification.The respondent was required to answer; a formal investigation was conducted by Deputy Court Administrator Meynardo A. Tiro, who received evidence from complainants and respondent and, on May 27, 1988, submitted his report and recommendation to the Court. On the first count Marquez explained he did not recommend Lorenzo’s reappointment because of alleged inefficiency and asserted his prerogative, as presiding judge, to select court staff. The Court considered this defense and cleared him of harassment.
As to the second charge, records showed Marquez had been counsel for the plaintiff in Civil Case No. 1202; the complaint had been filed by Crisostomo L. Luna, who is Marquez’s uncle, and Marquez also was a member of the plaintiff’s board of directors. After assuming office, Marquez ordered the plaintiff to secure new counsel, set hearings, then considered the case submitted and, on April 2, 1987, rendered judgment for the plaintiff; defendants appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Lucena. The Court examined compliance with Section 1, Rule 137, Rules of Court, which requires written consent of all parties entered of record before a judge who had been counsel may sit in the case.
On the third charge, documentary and testimonial evidence showed Marquez issued subpoenas addressed to NBP inmate Jose Obosa requiring his appearance on July 27–29, 1987 (noted “For Conference”) and later for August 28, 1987; yet the accused in the underlying matter had not been arrested and the case was not ready for trial. Marquez claimed the subpoenas were intended to ascertain the whereabouts of an at-large accused (Salamat) and that a complainant requested the subpoena; the complainant denied knowledge and said Marquez drafted a request-letter for him to sign. Obosa appeared at Marquez’s residence (not the courtroom) with prison escorts on July 28 and July 29; Marquez did not question him about Salamat’s whereabouts. The NBI investigator testified Obosa failed to return to his NBP quarters between July 28 and August 2 and was later identified in photographs as a man seen fleeing the highly publicized murder of Secretary Jaime Ferrer on August 2, 1987. Two criminal cases against Obosa and others were later pending before the RTC, Makati. The Court noted that subpoenas should be signed by the clerk under the seal (or by the judge only if there is no clerk) under Section 3, Rule 23, Rules of Court, that Marquez had a clerk but personally signed the subpoena, and that he had not obtained permission required by this Court’s Circular No. 6 (Dec. 5, 1987) to remove maximum-security prisoners from the NBP.
The Court found Marquez guilty of grave and serious misconduct for deciding Civil Case No. 1202 despite his prior role as counsel (violating Section 1, Rule 137) and for illegally issuing the s...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was respondent Judge Primo L. Marquez administratively liable for harassment for failing to indorse the reappointment of Mercedita G. Lorenzo?
- Did respondent violate Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court by sitting in and deciding Civil Case No. 1202 in which he formerly acted as counsel without written consent of the parties?
- Did respondent commit grave and serious misconduct by issuing subpoenas summoning NBP inmate Jose D. Obosa to appear before him, in violation of Section 3, Rule 23 and the Cour...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)