Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-06-2018)
Facts:
Office of the Solicitor General v. Judge Antonio I. De Castro, A.M. No. RTJ-06-2018 (formerly Adm. Matter OCA‑IPI No. 05‑2360‑RTJ), August 03, 2007, Supreme Court Second Division, Tinga, J., writing for the Court.The complainant was the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG); the respondent was Judge Antonio I. De Castro, presiding judge of RTC, Branch 3, Manila. An allied respondent, Executive Judge Antonio Eugenio, Jr., was initially charged but his case was later dismissed. The administrative complaint, filed 30 September 2005 by Solicitor General Alfredo Benipayo, charged the judges with knowingly rendering an unjust judgment, gross disregard of the law and jurisprudence, and dishonesty and abuse of authority arising from orders in habeas corpus proceedings concerning a Chinese national, Gao Yuan.
On 6 September 2005 immigration officers detained Gao Yuan based on a request from the Consul General of the People’s Republic of China and an order by Bureau of Immigration (BI) Commissioner Alipio Fernandez, Jr. A summary deportation order and charge sheet dated 7 September 2005 were later filed by the BI. On 8 September 2005 Gao’s husband, James Mahshi, filed a petition for habeas corpus with application for TRO in the RTC of Manila. That same day Executive Judge Eugenio issued a 72‑hour TRO; the matter was raffled to Branch 3, presided by respondent De Castro.
The BI, through the OSG and Commissioner Fernandez, filed a Return informing the court of the charge sheet, summary deportation order, and cancellation of Gao’s passport. On 9 September 2005 the parties agreed—at respondent’s suggestion—to extend the 72‑hour TRO by 17 days (until 28 September 2005). On 13 September 2005 respondent issued an Order of Release directing the Commissioner to discharge Gao upon the posting of a P250,000 cash bond; the BI initially refused to release her for lack of BI clearance. At the 16 September 2005 hearing the RTC took custody provisionally and imposed conditions (additional P100,000 bond, monitoring of movements, undertaking to appear, and possible arrest if she absconded). The BI filed a Notice of Appeal and motion for reconsideration.
Respondent subsequently issued orders on 19 and 23 September 2005 (the latter directing the issuance of a warrant for Gao’s arrest for failure to appear and denying a writ of injunction). The OSG maintained that the RTC had no authority to release an alien in deportation proceedings because Section 37(e) of the Philippine Immigration Act (C.A. No. 613) vests the power to grant bond in the Commissioner; the OSG cited Commissioner Rodriguez v. Judge Bonifacio and Rule 102 of the Rules of Court. Both judges were required to comment. The case against Judge Eugenio was dismissed by resolution dated 30 August 2006 as error in issuing the TRO but not warranting sanction; the complaint against respondent De Castro was re‑docketed as an administrative matter and assigned to Court of Appeals Justice Arcangelita Romilla‑Lontok for investigation and report.
After a hearing and submission of evidence, Justice Romilla‑Lontok issued a Report and Recommendation finding respondent’s actions taken in good faith but reflecting inadequate knowledge of applicable law and recom...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Regional Trial Court, Branch 3, have jurisdiction to entertain the petition for the writ of habeas corpus and to order the temporary release of Gao Yuan?
- Is Judge Antonio I. De Castro administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law for issuing the orders in the habeas corpus proceedings, and what is ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)