A.M. No. RTJ-08-2142 - Amante-Descallar vs. Ramas

Case Summary (A.M. No. RTJ-08-2142)

Administrative Complaints Filed Against Judge Ramas

Atty. Norlinda R. Amante-Descallar, the Clerk of Court at the Regional Trial Court of Pagadian City, Branch 18, initiated seven administrative complaints against Judge Reinerio Abraham B. Ramas. The complaints were based on allegations of gross ignorance of the law, gross negligence, and violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Atty. Amante-Descallar filed the complaints.
Allegations included gross ignorance of the law and negligence.
The complaints were directed at Judge Ramas of the same court.

Allegations of Gross Ignorance in Civil Case No. 3412

In the first complaint, Atty. Amante-Descallar accused Judge Ramas of gross ignorance of the law regarding the execution of a judgment in Civil Case No. 3412. She contended that the judge incorrectly calculated the five-year period for execution from the counsel's receipt of the Entry of Judgment rather than from the date of entry of judgment itself, as mandated by Rule 39.

Judge Ramas allegedly misapplied Rule 39 regarding execution.
The five-year period should start from the date of entry of judgment.
Atty. Amante-Descallar cited jurisprudence supporting her claim.

Allegations Regarding Plea Bargaining in Criminal Cases

In the second complaint, Atty. Amante-Descallar claimed that Judge Ramas exhibited gross ignorance of the law during plea bargaining in Criminal Case Nos. 5601-2000 and 5602-2000. The judge approved a plea agreement that she argued was contrary to the provisions of the Rules on Criminal Procedure and lacked necessary consent from the offended party.

The judge approved a plea bargain that was allegedly improper.
Concerns were raised about the lack of consent from the offended party.
The plea bargaining process was claimed to be inconsistent with legal provisions.

Questionable Plea Bargaining in People v. Dumpit

In another complaint, Atty. Amante-Descallar questioned the validity of plea bargaining in Criminal Case Nos. 5760-2K, 5761-2K, and 5762-2K. She argued that the judge's approval of the plea agreement and subsequent dismissal of cases were questionable, particularly regarding the accused's guilty plea to selling shabu.

The plea agreement in People v. Dumpit was challenged.
Atty. Amante-Descallar questioned the propriety of the judge's actions.
The accused pleaded guilty, leading to a dismissal of related cases.

Negligence in Issuing Search Warrant No. 40-03

Atty. Amante-Descallar alleged that Judge Ramas was grossly negligent in issuing Search Warrant No. 40-03, which was intended for a different individual. The judge later quashed the warrant, admitting the error, which Atty. Amante-Descallar argued exposed the judicial system to ridicule.

The search warrant was issued with incorrect details.
The judge admitted to the error, leading to the warrant's quashing.
Atty. Amante-Descallar claimed this negligence harmed the judicial system's integrity.

Dismissal of Criminal Case No. 8149-2K6

In another complaint, Atty. Amante-Descallar criticized Judge Ramas for dismissing Criminal Case No. 8149-2K6 for lack of probable cause before the prosecution had the opportunity to respond within the ten-day period he had set. She argued that this violated due process.

The judge dismissed the case prematurely.
Atty. Amante-Descallar claimed due process was violated.
The dismissal occurred before the prosecution could respond.

Errors in Handling Search Warrant No. 87-04

Atty. Amante-Descallar alleged that Judge Ramas failed to properly address a Motion to Quash related to Search Warrant No. 87-04, which contained a glaring error. The judge's resolution merely reproduced the erroneous prayer from the motion, indicating a lack of diligence.

The judge failed to address a significant error in the motion.
The resolution was a mere reproduction of the erroneous prayer.
Atty. Amante-Descallar claimed this demonstrated gross ignorance.

Provisional Dismissal of Criminal Case No. 6994-2K3

In another complaint, Atty. Amante-Descallar argued that Judge Ramas improperly dismissed Criminal Case No. 6994-2K3 for the prosecution's failure to present a specific witness, despite other witnesses being available. She contended that the judge should have allowed the prosecution to rest its case first.

The judge dismissed the case based on insufficient evidence.
Atty. Amante-Descallar argued that the prosecution had presented other witnesses.
The dismissal was seen as premature and unjust.

Dismissal of Cases Without Due Process

In Misc. No. 2887, Atty. Amante-Descallar claimed that Judge Ramas dismissed three criminal cases without allowing the prosecution to respond to motions filed by the accused. This disregard for the established timeline was viewed as a violation of due process.

The judge dismissed cases without prosecution input.
Atty. Amante-Descallar highlighted the violation of due process.
The actions were seen as arbitrary and unjust.

Judge Ramas' Defense and Counterclaims

In response to the complaints, Judge Ramas argued that the decisions made were within his judicial discretion and that the parties involved did not contest his orders, rendering them final and executory. He also suggested that Atty. Amante-Descallar had ulterior motives for filing t...continue reading