Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-95-1324)
Facts:
Evaristo Manahon v. Judge Alvin I. Tan, A.M. No. RTJ-95-1324, May 7, 2001, Supreme Court First Division, Davide, Jr., C.J., writing for the Court. Complainant Evaristo Manahon filed a sworn administrative complaint dated July 26, 1994 with the Chief Justice charging Judge Alvin L. Tan of the RTC, Negros Oriental, Branch 44, with illegal arrest and detention, grave abuse of discretion, and abuse of authority; the affidavit was sworn before the Provincial Prosecutor of Negros Oriental.Manahon alleged that an arrest order was issued in Criminal Case No. 11427 (assigned initially to Judge Winston Villegas, Branch 43, and later to Judge Rosendo Bandal, Jr., Branch 34) and that he was arrested on July 19, 1994; although he posted a cash bond that afternoon, he claimed Judge Tan refused to release him until July 20, 1994 and acted out of vindictiveness for an administrative complaint Manahon's sister had filed. Judge Tan explained that the case had been indorsed to his branch in exchange for another case pursuant to a June 27, 1994 indorsement, that he issued the arrest order only after studying the information, and that release occurred on July 20, 1994 because the bond undertaking and a residence certificate were dated that day.
The Court required Executive Judge Pacifico Bulado (Branch 33) to comment; Bulado traced the case's routing: a general raffle pursuant to Administrative Circular No. 7 assigned the case to Branch 43 (route one); consolidation of related matters caused transfers between Branches 43 and 34 (route two); a transfer/exchange with a forestry case occurred because Branch 34 was the Special Court for forestry violations under Administrative Order No. 150-93 (route three); and subsequently the case reached Branch 44 (route four). Bulado explained that some exchanges followed from consolidation and the special-designation policy rather than by raffle.
The complaint was referred to then-Associate Justice Arturo B. Buena of the Court of Appeals for investigation; hearings set for August 1995 were cancelled at complainant's motion. The Supreme Court denied a requested change of venue but delegated reception of evidence to Executive Judge Eleuterio E. Chiu (later temporarily reassigned to Judge Temistocles Diez, who inhibited). At the evidentiary hearing on September 28, 1998, complainant's counsel, Atty. Elpidio Unto, manifested that there was no evidence against Judge Tan, and Manahon confirmed he had no evidence and wished to withdraw; he then filed a written motion to withdraw and an Affidavit of Desistance.
Judge Chiu terminated the investigation and recommended dismissal for absence of evidence. The investigation report was reassigned (after Justice Buena's appointment to the Supreme Court) to Associate Justice Mariano Umali of the Court of Appeals. In his June 30, 1999 Report, Justice Umali nonetheless evaluated the merits despite the desistance (noting the settled rule that administrative charges need not depend on the complainant's will, especially where deprivation of lib...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- May an administrative investigation proceed notwithstanding the complainant's desistance, particularly where deprivation of liberty is alleged?
- Did Judge Alvin I. Tan commit illegal arrest and detention, grave abuse of discretion, or abuse of authority warr...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)