Momongan vs. Omipon

Facts:

Augustus L. Momongan v. Judge Rafael B. Omipon, A.M. No. MTJ-93-874, March 14, 1995, Supreme Court Third Division, Romero, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner is Augustus L. Momongan, Regional Director of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Region VIII; respondent is Judge Rafael B. Omipon, presiding judge of the 6th Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Hinunangan–Silago, Southern Leyte.

On November 14, 1992 police in Hinunangan apprehended Dionisio Golpe driving a truck loaded with illegally cut lumber; the truck and logs were impounded. A criminal complaint was thereafter filed against Basilio Cabig, alleged owner of the lumber. After conducting a preliminary investigation, respondent Judge Omipon found a prima facie case against Cabig but ordered the release of the truck because Golpe, the truck owner/driver, was not charged.

Regional Director Momongan filed an administrative complaint against Judge Omipon, alleging that the judge’s order violated Presidential Decree No. 705 (PD 705), Secs. 68 and 68‑A, and Administrative Order No. 59 (AO 59), series of 1990, which vest administrative authority in the DENR to confiscate forest products and conveyances. Momongan contended that the truck should have been turned over to the Community Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) of San Juan, Southern Leyte.

Respondent explained that Golpe was principally a hauler of sand and hollow blocks who, on the delivery trip, agreed to carry sliced lumber for Cabig; Golpe was therefore a minor participant and might serve as a prosecution witness. In the exercise of discretion after preliminary investigation, the judge released the truck since Golpe was not charged.

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found the judge’s explanation unsatisfactory and recommended a formal investigation by an Acting Executive Judge. The Court referred the matter to Acting Executive Judge Leandro T. Loyao, Jr., for investigation, report and recommendation. During investigatory hearings the complainant often sent representatives; respondent later missed a hearing due to a stroke and was hospitalized. DENR counsel subsequently filed a motion for reinvestigation and to include Golpe in the information and sought turnover of the jeep to PNP and DENR; both parties ultimately submitted the administrative matter for resolution without further evidence.

The investigating judge’s confidential report noted the lack of additional facts and recommended disposition on the record, also mentioning respondent’...(Pro-only)

Issues:

• Did respondent Judge Omipon’s order releasing the truck used to transport illegally cut lumber violate PD 705 Sec. 68/68‑A and AO 59 and constitute a disciplinary offense?
• Was respondent obliged to turn over the truck to the DENR/CENRO at the time of his order, and could the truck be confiscated or forfeited absent indictment o...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

• (Pro-only)

Ratio:

• (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

• (Pro-only)