Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-03-1813)
Facts:
Atty. Antonio D. Seludo v. Judge Antonio J. Fineza, A.M. No. RTJ-03-1813 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 03-1640-RTJ), November 21, 2003, Supreme Court Second Division, Puno, J., writing for the Court.The administrative complaint arose from proceedings in People of the Philippines v. Alfonso De Villar, Errol De Villar and Rodeo Lerio, Criminal Case No. C-58093 (attempted murder) pending before respondent Judge Antonio J. Fineza, Branch 131, Regional Trial Court, Caloocan City. Complainant Atty. Antonio D. Seludo, counsel for two accused, alleged that on November 27, 2002 respondent issued an order directing the arrest of Seludo (and ordering him detained until the decision in C-58093 was promulgated) for failure to appear at the scheduled promulgation.
Seludo explained that he missed the November 27 promulgation because of a prior conflicting hearing in Criminal Cases Nos. 178462–64 before Judge Edwin B. Ramizo; his secretary had informed respondent's office of this conflict, and an earlier promulgation date (November 18) had been cancelled due to respondent’s hospitalization. After Seludo's arrest he sought reconsideration but respondent initially refused to receive him; when Seludo later spoke to respondent near the judge’s car, Seludo alleges respondent said, in the presence of police officers, “kung gusto mo, pumunta ka sa harap ng kotse ko at sasagasaan na lang kita.” Seludo spent the night in jail and was brought the next day for promulgation; following a delay caused by the prosecutor’s late and improper appearance and imposition of a P1,000 fine on the prosecutor, the decision was promulgated and Seludo released.
Respondent denied illegal conduct, characterized Seludo as a “fact fabricator” and other epithets in his comment, and defended the arrest as necessary to prevent delay in promulgation, citing Section 14, Rule 119 (bail to secure appearance of material witness) as authority. He denied the car-threat allegation, saying he only warned Seludo to move or risk his foot being run over. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) reported adversely: it found the arrest illegal and oppressive, violative of due process and tantamount to arbitrary detention (citing Article 124, Revised Penal Code), and criticized respondent’s intemperate language. OCA recommended a P20,000 fine for g...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did respondent Judge Fineza violate due process and applicable rules by ordering the arrest and detention of counsel Atty. Seludo for failure to appear at a promulgation?
- Did respondent’s language and conduct in the complaint and comment constitute misconduct or violation of ethical rules warranting discipline?
- If violations are established, what discipl...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)