A.M. No. MTJ-12-1814 - Office of the Court Administrator vs. Ante, Jr.

An administrative complaint was filed against Judge Francisco A. Ante, Jr. of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Vigan City, Ilocos Sur.
The complaint charged Judge Ante with gross ignorance of the law, arising from his issuance of search warrants that allegedly failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court.

The dispute originated from a joint resolution dated April 19, 2010, issued by then Presiding Judge Modesto L. Quismorio of the MTCC in Candon City, Ilocos Sur.
In that resolution, Judge Quismorio criticized Judge Ante for failing to properly examine complainants and witnesses through “searching questions and answers” as mandated in Section 5 in relation to Section 4 of Rule 126.
The resolution was rendered in connection with Criminal Case Nos. 4939 and 4940, involving the quashing of Search Warrant No. 37, S’ 2009.

Judge Ante countered the resolution in a letter-complaint dated October 1, 2010, charging Judge Quismorio with conduct unbecoming a judge.
He argued that the resolution was malicious, unfounded, and insulted his knowledge of the law, and noted that Judge Quismorio allegedly projected himself as more knowledgeable for political gain (as he was vying for a regional trial court position).
In his answer, Judge Quismorio maintained that the statement in question explained the failure to comply with the required personal examination of complainants and witnesses, which underpinned the issuance of the challenged search warrant.

An audit was conducted by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) to review the handling of search warrant applications at MTCC, Vigan City.
The audit covered the period from January 2005 to February 23, 2012 and revealed that Judge Ante issued a total of 1,732 search warrants.
A random sample of 141 search warrants was examined, with findings including:

Only a small fraction (11 out of 141) were to be enforced within his territorial jurisdiction.
In many cases, the “compelling reasons” for filing the application were accepted without further probing or additional supporting details.
A majority of the search warrants (123 out of 141) appeared to have been issued without the examiner personally conducting the required examination (i.e., no proper “searching questions and answers” as mandated by Section 5, Rule 126).
The formality of the examination in some cases did not meet the rigorous standards expected, thereby not conclusively establishing probable cause.
Numerous search warrants lacked the required return of the seized property within ten days as stipulated in Section 12 of Rule 126.

A July 27, 2011, directive for an audit of search warrant issuance.
A May 21, 2012, memorandum reporting the audit findings.
A Requirement for Judge Ante to comment on the audit findings in a Resolution dated June 25, 2012.

Judge Ante and his court staff, including Court Stenographer Wilfredo A. Pascua, provided explanations and responses regarding the discrepancies noted in the records.
The OCA later recommended harsher penalties for Judge Ante based on allegations of gross ignorance of the law and grave abuse of discretion; however, subsequent resolutions addressed these claims separately.

Whether Judge Ante’s practice of issuing search warrants—many of which lacked proper personal examination of complainants and witnesses, and did not strictly adhere to the requirements set out in Sections 4, 5, and 12 of Rule 126—constitutes misconduct warranting administrative sanction.
Whether the errors identified in the audit, including the issuance of warrants outside proper jurisdiction and the failure to secure the required return of seized items, should be characterized as gross ignorance of the law and grave abuse of discretion or merely as simple neglect of duty.
Whether administrative proceedings are the proper forum to evaluate the merit of the “compelling reasons” cited in warrant applications or to reassess a judge’s discretion in fulfilling statutory requirements.