Title
Re: Hold Departure Order Issued by Judge Juan Nartatez
Case
A.M. No. 98-10-141-MTCC
Decision Date
Nov 18, 1998
Judge Nartatez issued an unauthorized Hold Departure Order, violating Supreme Court Circular No. 39-97. He admitted the error, rectified it, and was reprimanded, emphasizing judges’ duty to stay updated.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 73558)

Facts:

A.M. No. 98-10-141-MTCC, November 18, 1998, Supreme Court En Banc, Mendoza, J., writing for the Court. This administrative case concerns a hold-departure order issued by Judge Juan C. Nartatez, Municipal Trial Court, Branch 3, Davao City, in connection with Criminal Cases Nos. 68,229-C-98 to 68,231-C-98 (entitled People of the Philippines v. Eileen Lope) for alleged violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.

On June 4, 1998 the Secretary of Justice indorsed to the Court Administrator a hold-departure order said to have been issued by Judge Nartatez (the case caption refers to an order dated April 13, 1998; the decision text records issuance on April 23, 1998) and called attention that the order was contrary to Supreme Court Circular No. 39-97, which limits the authority to issue hold-departure orders to Regional Trial Courts in criminal cases within their exclusive jurisdiction.

The Court Administrator required Judge Nartatez to comment. Judge Nartatez admitted issuing the hold-departure order, acknowledged he was unaware of Circular No. 39-97, and thereafter issued an order dated August 4, 1998 setting aside and recalling the hold-departure order. The Court Administrator recommended that Judge Nartatez be reprimanded and reminded to keep abreast of Supreme Court issuances.

The matter was acted upon by the Supreme Court En Banc on administrative review of the Court Administrator’s indorsement and recommendation; no separate trial-court disciplinary hearing or appellate court proceedings are reported. The Court considered the admissions, th...(Subscriber-Only)

Issues:

  • Did Judge Juan C. Nartatez commit a breach of duty or misconduct by issuing a hold-departure order contrary to Supreme Court Circular No. 39-97?
  • If so, what disciplinary sanction is appropriate for ...(Subscriber-Only)

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.