A.M. No. RTJ-05-1898 - Tan vs. Adre

The administrative complaint was initiated by Charlton Tan, who filed the affidavit-complaint against Judge Abednego O. Adre of the Regional Trial Court (Quezon City, Branch 88) before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).
The allegations against the judge centered on grave abuse of authority and gross ignorance of the law.

Charlton Tan was originally a respondent in a habeas corpus case filed by his wife, Rosana Reyes-Tan.
On March 24, 2004, after due process was given, the respondent judge issued a writ of habeas corpus ordering Charlton Tan to appear before the court with the body of their daughter, Charlene Reyes Tan, on March 26, 2004.
On the scheduled hearing, the court provisionally turned over the custody of the child to her mother.

A motion for reconsideration was filed on April 20, 2004, seeking either the return of the child to the father or a shared custody arrangement, but the case was rescheduled to August 3, 2004 because Mrs. Tan was indisposed during the hearing on April 26, 2004.
On May 25, 2004, Charlton Tan filed a motion to inhibit the judge, alleging partiality, which was denied by the judge on June 15, 2004.
In his verified complaint dated June 29, 2004, Charlton Tan reiterated his allegations against the judge with specific assertions:

The writ of habeas corpus was issued without a preliminary hearing.
The provisional custody of the minor was granted to Rosana without giving the complainant an opportunity to be heard.
Factors that should have disqualified Rosana as a suitable custodian were allegedly ignored, including her overseas employment status, her short visits to the Philippines, her alleged relationship with a Canadian man, and her questionable financial capacity.

Concerns were raised regarding the scheduling of hearings, noting that a four-month delay (from April 26 to August 3, 2004) could affect the resolution of the case, especially in view of the judge's impending retirement on July 10, 2004.

The respondent judge denied all allegations, maintaining that his actions were supported by law and jurisprudence.
On October 12, 2004, the OCA submitted a report recommending the dismissal of the complaint due to lack of merit.
The issues raised by the complainant were twofold:

Whether the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus without a prior hearing constituted abuse of authority.
Whether the order granting provisional custody to the mother was tantamount to ignorance of the law.

Whether the respondent judge’s immediate issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, without first conducting a hearing, exceeded his lawful mandate.
Whether such issuance, based on Section 5, Rule 102 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, constituted an act of grave abuse of authority.

Whether the provisional custody of the four-year-old child being granted to the mother, despite the complainant’s contention, amounted to ignorance of the law.
Whether the judge’s order contemplated the relevant legal provisions, notably Article 213 of the Family Code, and established jurisprudence regarding custody of minors under seven years of age.