A.M. No. MTJ-07-1670 - Santos vs. Bernardo

The case is an administrative complaint filed by Atty. Roderick M. Santos and Alexander Andres against Judge Lauro Bernardo of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) in Bocaue, Bulacan.
The complaint alleges multiple misconducts: impropriety, manifest bias and partiality, grave abuse of discretion, and gross ignorance of the law and procedural rules in connection with Criminal Case No. 06-004 ("People of the Philippines v. Atty. Roderick M. Santos and Boyet Andres").

Respondent is accused of using government resources for personal convenience by allowing his girlfriend—referred to as “Boots” (later established as his lawful wife)—to use his judicial chamber as her lounge.
This conduct is said to breach Rule 2.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which mandates that judges maintain proper decorum and avoid creating an environment that compromises the integrity and dignity of the court.
The presence of his girlfriend in the judge’s chamber during hearings reportedly disrupted court proceedings and raised concerns regarding undue influence or favoritism.

It is charged that respondent allowed the filing of Criminal Case No. 06-004 for Grave Coercion in an effort to exact revenge on Atty. Santos, with whom he had a personal conflict dating back to previous cases (Criminal Case Nos. 04-430 and 04-572).
The judge allegedly expedited the process—without verifying probable cause—by immediately signing the criminal complaint and ordering a preliminary hearing, despite evident irregularities such as the use of hearsay evidence.
His prompt processing and scheduling of the case further suggested that personal animosity may have influenced his judicial actions.

The complaint asserts that the respondent failed to conduct a required preliminary investigation under Section 1 and Section 8(b) of Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, despite the maximum penalty for Grave Coercion (six years imprisonment) meeting the threshold for such an investigation.
Instead of following mandatory procedural safeguards that help determine the existence of probable cause before proceeding to trial, the judge bypassed this step—thereby causing potential harm to the complainants by subjecting them to an unjust and unmeritorious proceeding.
Complainants argued that this failure not only flouted established legal procedure but also tarnished the professional reputation of Atty. Santos, who is a prominent lawyer and businessman.

In his Comment and subsequent Rejoinder, Judge Bernardo contended that his actions, including the use of his chamber by his girlfriend (later his wife), were justified on personal and medical grounds, emphasizing that her presence was due to his health needs and her role in managing the family’s business interests.
He argued that his signing of affidavits was merely for the purpose of administering an oath, not constituting a finding of probable cause, and maintained that his actions were in line with Sections 3(a) and 8(b) of Rule 112 and Section 3 of Rule 110.
The judge further asserted that the criminal proceeding was algorithmic “damage control” and that any perceived promptness was typical of the administrative process, especially in light of the personal conflicts arising from earlier cases.

The enmity between Judge Bernardo and Atty. Santos dates back to earlier criminal cases (Nos. 04-430 and 04-572), where animosity was evident and led to actions that have since been subject to judicial review.
The administrative case was brought forward amidst allegations that the judge’s actions were driven by personal motives rather than an objective evaluation of legal and procedural requirements.
The case underscores the importance of maintaining judicial neutrality and following prescribed procedures, irrespective of interpersonal conflicts.

On February 20, 2007, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found Judge Bernardo administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law, specifically his failure to conduct a preliminary investigation as mandated by the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
The OCA recommended and imposed a fine of P20,000 on the judge, along with a stern warning that any repetition of similar misconduct would result in harsher sanctions.
The charges related to the alleged impropriety (the use of his chamber) were dismissed due to insufficient evidence, while the other allegations, particularly regarding procedural noncompliance, were upheld.

Whether the respondent, Judge Bernardo, improperly used government resources by allowing his girlfriend to occupy his chamber, thereby violating the decorum expected of a judicial officer.
Whether the judge’s actions in immediately signing the criminal complaint without conducting the requisite preliminary investigation evidenced manifest bias and partiality, especially in light of his personal grudge against Atty. Santos.
Whether the failure to conduct a preliminary investigation—as mandated by Sections 1 and 8(b) of Rule 112—constituted a grave abuse of discretion and a blatant ignorance of the law.
Whether the procedural irregularities, including reliance on hearsay evidence and the expedited scheduling of the preliminary hearing, undermined the integrity of the judicial process.
Whether the judge’s defense—that his actions were in accordance with other procedural provisions (e.g., Rule 110 and his administration of oaths)—adequately justified his conduct.