Case Digest (G.R. No. 225735)
Facts:
Renato Alvaro Ruperto v. Judge Tirso F. Banquerigo, A.M. No. MTJ-98-1154, August 26, 1998, Supreme Court Second Division, Regalado, J., writing for the Court.Complainant Renato Alvaro Ruperto filed a verified administrative complaint against Judge Tirso F. Banquerigo, then acting presiding judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), Bindoy‑Ayungon‑Manjuyod, alleging ignorance of the law, malicious prosecution, grave abuse of discretion and malicious delay in the administration of justice. The charges arose from two sets of events: a civil ejectment action and an earlier criminal proceeding.
On August 2, 1995 Ruperto instituted Civil Case No. A‑178 (ejectment with damages) in the MCTC of Bindoy‑Ayungon‑Manjuyod against spouses Anselmo and Pacita Mojillo. The Mojillos failed to file an answer within the reglementary period under the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. Ruperto filed a motion on September 1, 1995 asking the trial court to decide the case summarily pursuant to that Rule. Judge Banquerigo did not promptly rule on the motion; instead he granted defendants an additional ten days to answer. The case was set for hearing on December 14, 1995 and later reset to March 14, 1996. Complainant charged that these delays, and the judge’s failure to apply the summary procedure, amounted to malicious delay, ignorance of the law and grave abuse of discretion.
Separately, Ruperto accused Judge Banquerigo of malicious prosecution for issuing a warrant of arrest on February 26, 1990 charging him with two counts of qualified theft. Ruperto asserted that the alleged acts occurred in daylight in the presence of witnesses and that title to the land was in dispute; moreover, the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City dismissed the criminal cases on March 13, 1991 for lack of proof of criminal intent.
Judge Banquerigo, after seeking several extensions, filed a comment. He explained he was serving as an acting judge and reported to the MCTC only twice weekly; he also was detailed to several other courts and claimed a heavy docket (226 pending cases). He admitted issuing the arrest warrant but maintained it was supported by prima facie findings during preliminary investigation and subsequently sustained by the Provincial Prosecutor. Regarding the ejectment action, he defended his failure to immediately resolve the case under Section 6 of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure by stating that, in the interest of justice, the motion should be set for hearing, particularly after parties filed pleadings (including a reply and answer to a counterclaim), which he regarded as abandoning the motion for summary disposition.
The administrative complaint was resolved by this Court in an opinion by Justice Regalado. The Court examined the judge’s conduct against the standar...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did Judge Banquerigo commit malicious prosecution in issuing the arrest warrant against Renato Alvaro Ruperto?
- Did Judge Banquerigo’s failure to promptly decide the ejectment case under the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure constitute ignorance of the law, grave abuse of discretion or malicious delay warranting discipline, and wh...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)