G.R. No. 153478 - MR Holdings, Ltd. vs. Bajar

Public Attorneys Gerlie M. Uy and Ma. Consolacion T. Bascug of the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO), La Carlota District, filed a verified administrative complaint against Presiding Judge Erwin B. Javellana of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC), La Castellana, Negros Occidental.
The complaint alleged gross ignorance of the law and procedures, gross incompetence, neglect of duty, improper and unbecoming conduct of a judge, grave misconduct, among others.

Gross ignorance of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, demonstrated in various cases:

Issuance of a warrant of arrest in People v. Cornelio despite prohibition under Section 16 of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure.
Refusal to grant dismissal for non-compliance with Lupon requirement in People v. Celeste, et al., insisting motion to dismiss was prohibited pleading.
Refusal to dismiss complaint based on hearsay affidavits in People v. Celeste, et al.
Conducting preliminary examination and investigation in People v. Lopez, et al., despite the case falling under the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, and setting arraignment and pre-trial.

Relationship with surety agent Leilani Manunag, creating an impression of co-agency:

Instructed accused’s wife to file motions with Manunag, who was perceived as court personnel; released accused on surety bonds requiring premium payment.
Reduced bail amounts consistent with Manunag’s instructions rather than PAO or police recommendations.
Did not warn or question Manunag’s involvement despite her engagement in surety business.
Directed accused’s relatives to Manunag for affidavit processing, who charged fees.
Granted motions to reduce bail filed by Manunag’s intimate friend without setting hearing, considering premium amounts in bail determination.
Denied some motions on procedural grounds but granted others facilitated by Manunag despite similar violations.
Issued warrants of arrest in cases where bail bonds were facilitated by Manunag under questionable circumstances.

Violated Section 6(b), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure by issuing warrants without sufficient inquiry. Warrants issued even when accused voluntarily surrendered or under warrantless arrest.
Violated constitutional rights under Article III, Section 12(1) by conducting preliminary investigation in People v. Bautista without counsel present or informing accused of rights.
Habitual tardiness in court attendance, causing parties to wait unreasonably and forced case resets.
Whimsically and inconsistently applied laws, granting or denying motions variably depending on parties’ status or personal relations.
Insisted “litigants are made for the courts” rather than courts for litigants, refusing to accept petitions/applications prepared by PAO but signed only by accused.
Improperly aired complaints against PAO attorneys; issued rebukes without due process, and filed complaints with inappropriate authorities.
Attached an anonymous handwritten note from a court staff member enumerating various additional observations and criticisms including Judge’s late arrival, neglect, boastfulness, and tolerance of court utility worker’s negligence.

Denied allegations as baseless and malicious, asserting acts involved judicial discretion.
Explained issuance of warrants and refusal to dismiss motions under his interpretation of the law.
Denied being co-agent of Manunag, claimed all business relations were official and transparent; denied influence by Manunag in bail reductions.
Asserted compliance with procedural rules and explained actions based on fairness and practicality.
Attributed tardiness to medical conditions (diabetes).
Justified not accepting pleadings signed only by accused as a matter of legal propriety.
Emphasized his references to previous cases as demonstrating seriousness, not vanity.
Identified author of anonymous note, described him as eccentric and disloyal.
Accused complainants of conspiracy with local officials motivated by vested interests.

Found Judge Javellana liable for gross ignorance of law and gross misconduct.
Recommended the complaint be re-docketed as regular administrative matter with suspension without salary for three months and stern warning.

Whether Judge Javellana was guilty of gross ignorance of the law, particularly the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure.
Whether Judge Javellana committed gross misconduct through improper conduct with surety agents, inconsistent rulings, improper airing of complaints against PAO attorneys, habitual tardiness, and conduct unbecoming of a judge.
Whether the factual allegations and evidence justify administrative sanctions against Judge Javellana, and what penalty, if any, should be imposed.