A.M. No. MTJ-91-517 - Albos vs. Alaba

Case Summary (A.M. No. MTJ-91-517)

Factual Background

On 27 August 1990, Albos filed with the MTC of Tanauan, Leyte, a complaint for grave oral defamation against Songalia. In October 1990, Albos and her mother went to the court to verify the status of the case. The Clerk of Court allegedly informed them that the complaint was “not yet signed” by Judge Alaba. Albos and her mother then approached the respondent judge to inquire further. According to the narration adopted in the administrative proceedings, Judge Alaba threw the papers onto his table and remarked that the documents were useless and would result in Albos losing the case.

Because of that incident, Albos hired counsel. Counsel proceeded to present a complaint to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Leyte rather than pressing the original court complaint. Assistant Prosecutor Yolanda Paganda then filed the corresponding information with the MTC of Tanauan, Leyte, docketed as Criminal Case No. 4486.

Motion to Inhibit and Alleged Judicial Conduct

On 14 January 1991, Albos, through counsel, filed a motion to inhibit Judge Alaba from trying the case. Judge Alaba allegedly refused to act on the motion and even challenged Albos’s counsel to a fight. Albos subsequently reported that the judge dismissed the case.

In the criminal case proceedings, the investigating judge’s findings described that after arraignment, pre-trial was held on 17 January 1991 and the parties agreed that trial would be set for February 13 and 14, 1991. Before February 13, 1991, the private prosecutor, Atty. Custodio Canete, filed a motion to inhibit Judge Alaba. The respondent judge allegedly declined to act on the motion, citing that it purportedly failed to comply with Sec. 16 in relation to Sec. 5, Rule 110 of the New Rules on Criminal Procedure. When the case was called for trial on February 13, 1991, Albos and her counsel did not appear. The public prosecutor and the accused and her counsel were present. The defense invoked the constitutional right to a speedy trial, and Judge Alaba did not grant dismissal at that time, stating that the case would be called again the next day.

On February 14, 1991, the accused and her counsel were again present. The public prosecutor moved that the case be called later because the complainant was expected to appear. Judge Alaba granted the request. When the case was called again, Albos failed to appear, and the defense renewed its motion for dismissal on speedy trial grounds. Judge Alaba then granted the motion and dismissed the case.

Administrative Complaint and Referral for Investigation

For dismissing the criminal case after declining to act on the motion to inhibit, Albos filed the administrative complaint against Judge Alaba with the Office of the Court Administrator.

The Court later resolved to refer the matter for investigation, report, and recommendation to Executive Judge Fortunato B. Operario of the Regional Trial Court of Tacloban, Leyte. When Judge Operario retired, Acting Executive Judge Getulio M. Francisco took over.

Investigating Judge’s Findings and Recommendation

Acting Executive Judge Francisco submitted findings on 16 April 1993. He concluded that there was no grave misconduct or conduct unbecoming of a municipal trial judge, and no oppression or gross inefficiency, but he recommended an admonition. His discussion focused on the judge’s failure to inhibit himself despite the motion for inhibition filed by the private prosecutor, reasoning that it should have been safer for the judge to inhibit to avoid suspicion.

Francisco’s recommendation reflected the following core factual inferences: the criminal complaint had not been docketed at first because Judge Alaba was conducting lectures in various barangays of Tanauan regarding the Barangay Justice Law; the judge did not grant the motion to inhibit on the ground that it lacked the conformity of the public prosecutor; and nevertheless, the judge’s inaction in the face of a challenge to his impartiality could undermine public trust. Francisco thus recommended that Judge Alaba be admonished to be more cautious and extra careful, with a warning that repetition would be dealt with more severely.

Office of the Court Administrator’s Memorandum and Additional Observations

On 14 January 1994, Deputy Court Administrator Bernardo P. Abesamis, with the concurrence of Court Administrator Ernani Cruz-Pano, submitted a memorandum evaluating the matter. The memorandum summarized the complainant’s account that Albos had filed a signed complaint prepared by a PNP investigator, that she and her mother later learned it was not yet signed by Judge Alaba, and that the judge allegedly threw the papers and declared them useless. It also noted that Albos filed the motion to inhibit on 17 January 1991 according to that memorandum, and that Judge Alaba allegedly never acted on it.

Judge Alaba’s comment was described as denying the principal allegations and asserting that he learned of the complaint only upon receipt of the instant administrative complaint, because the clerk allegedly informed him that the complaint was withdrawn and thus never signed. The memorandum also recounted that Judge Alaba first became acquainted with the motion to inhibit during the period when the complainant inquired about its status. The memorandum later stated that Judge Alaba justified his refusal to inhibit by pointing to procedural compliance and the role of the public prosecutor in supervision and control of prosecution.

Importantly, the memorandum’s evaluative reasoning added that, although judges may engage in lawful enterprises such as lectures on the Barangay Law, they must not allow such activity to distract them from judicial tasks. The memorandum observed that, assuming the judge could not sign the complaint due to a defect such as failure of subscription, Albos should have been notified of the defect rather than being met with dismissive conduct.

The Office of the Court Administrator, adopting and confirming the investigative findings by and large, recommended reprimand and admonition, with a warning that a similar offense would merit more severe action.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

In resolving the administrative case, the Court held that a judge is bound never to consider lightly a motion for inhibition that puts into question, even in the smallest way, the judge’s supposed impartiality in a case pending before him. While the ju

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. MTJ-91-517)

The complainant, Nimfa Albos, filed a sworn letter-complaint before the Office of the Court Administrator charging the respondent, Judge Eugenio Alaba, with misconduct, oppression, and gross inefficiency.
The complaint stemmed from the respondent judge’s handling of a grave oral defamation case pending before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Tanauan, Leyte.
The Court ultimately found the administrative matter to warrant disciplinary action in the form of reprimand and a directive for greater assiduity in the performance of judicial duties.
The Court’s disposition was En Banc.

Parties and Procedural Posture

Nimfa Albos acted as complainant in the administrative case.
Judge Eugenio Alaba, as presiding judge of the MTC of Tanauan, Leyte, acted as respondent.
The Court, by a resolution dated 13 February 1992, referred the matter to Executive Judge Fortunato B. Operario of the Regional Trial Court of Tacloban, Leyte, for investigation, report, and recommendation.
After Judge Operario retired, Acting Executive Judge Getulio M. Francisco took over the assignment and submitted findings and recommendations on 16 April 1993.
In a subsequent resolution dated 22 July 1993, the matter was again referred to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation, report, and recommendation.
Deputy Court Administrator Bernardo P. Abesamis, with the concurrence of Court Administrator Ernani Cruz-Pano, submitted a memorandum dated 14 January 1994.
The Court then considered the Office of the Court Administrator’s memorandum to be satisfactory and well taken, and resolved to reprimand the respondent judge.

Key Factual Allegations

On 27 August 1990, the complainant filed with the MTC of Tanauan, Leyte, a complaint for grave oral defamation against Rebecca Songalia.
In October 1990, the complainant, accompanied by her mother, went to the MTC to verify the status of the complaint.
The Clerk of Court informed them that the complaint was “not yet signed” by the respondent judge.
When the complainant and her mother approached the respondent judge, he allegedly threw the papers on top of his table and declared that they were useless and that the complainant would lose.
The complainant hired a lawyer, and counsel caused the filing of a complaint with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Leyte instead of proceeding through the judge-signed complaint route.
Assistant Prosecutor Yolanda Paganda filed the corresponding information with the MTC of Tanauan, docketed as Criminal Case No. 4486.
On 14 January 1991, through counsel, the complainant filed a motion asking the respondent judge to inhibit himself from trying the case.
The respondent refused to act on the motion, and he allegedly challenged the complainant’s counsel to a fight.
The case proceeded until the respondent judge dismissed it.
The complainant later filed the administrative complaint against the respondent judge for grave misconduct, conduct unbecoming of a municipal trial court judge, oppression, and gross inefficiency.

Respondent’s Defenses

The respondent judge denied the allegations in the complainant’s pleadings.
The respondent contended that he came to know of the grave oral defamation complaint only when he received a copy of the instant administrative complaint.
The respondent claimed that he was informed by his clerk of court that the complaint for grave oral defamation had been withdrawn by the complainant and therefore was not signed.
The respondent asserted that the first time he saw the complainant was when she inquired about the status of the motion for inhibition on January 21, 1991.
The respondent stated that he saw a notice of appearance and a motion for inhibition filed by Atty. Custodio Canete that allegedly lacked the conformity of the public prosecutor.
The respondent alleged that, despite the appearance-related circumstances, he waited for Atty. Custodio on the date stated in the pleading, but Atty. Custodio never appeared.

Investigation Findings and Recommendations

Acting Executive Judge Getulio M. Francisco found that a criminal case for grave oral defamation was filed by the complainant aga