A.M. No. MTJ-93-877 - Ting vs. Atal

Complainant: Mayor Delfin T. Ting.
Respondent: Hon. Elpidio B. Atal, Municipal Judge, Branch 2, Tuguegarao, Cagayan.
Third-Party Involvement:

Vicente Miguel y Ablan, Supervising Examiner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue, was charged in connection with a case involving an alleged receipt of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) from Mary Jane Tolentino y Blancas.
The payment pertained to settling issues regarding the non-VAT registration of Tolentino’s Pretty Look Garments, allegedly under coercion as failure to pay would result in her being reported as a delinquent taxpayer.

Criminal Case No. 15192 (Bribery) and Criminal Case No. 15193 (Violation of Republic Act No. 3019 – Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) were filed against Vicente Miguel.
Counsel for the accused filed a motion to quash the cases on jurisdictional grounds, claiming that the subject matters fall under the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
In an Order dated June 10, 1993, Judge Atal granted the motion to quash, directed the release of the accused’s cash bond, and instructed that the charges be refiled in the proper forum.

Argues that Judge Atal erred in dismissing the cases by neglecting to conduct the preliminary investigation he was authorized to perform.
Contends that dismissing the cases constituted gross ignorance of the law and judicial incompetence.
Asserts that such errors in the performance of judicial responsibilities are grounds for dismissal from service.

Section 3(4): Grants Investigating Officials the authority to conduct preliminary investigations.
Section 4(g): Mandates that, upon termination of a preliminary investigation, records with the resolution be forwarded to designated authorities, and that no complaint may be dismissed without written authority in cases within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan or the proper Deputy Ombudsman.

Provides Municipal Trial Court judges the authority to conduct preliminary investigations.

The dismissal of the cases was premised on a purported lack of jurisdiction.
However, Administrative Order No. 7 expressly permits him to conduct the preliminary investigation even in cases falling within the Sandiganbayan’s jurisdiction.
Despite the error, mitigating factors such as good faith and absence of malicious intent were noted.

Whether Judge Atal had the proper jurisdiction and authority to conduct the preliminary investigation in the subject cases, particularly in light of the provisions of Administrative Order No. 7 and Rule 112.
Whether the dismissal of the cases solely on a jurisdictional basis was warranted.

Whether Judge Atal’s decision to dismiss the cases constituted gross ignorance of the law and judicial incompetence.
Whether such errors are sufficient grounds for disciplinary action, including dismissal from the service.

Whether the judge’s apparent lack of malicious intent or corrupt motive can sufficiently mitigate the error.
The extent to which good faith and absence of corrupt conduct should influence the imposition of penalties despite the procedural error.