Title
Carbonell vs. Cabading
Case
A.M. No. 34-MJ
Decision Date
Jan 17, 1975
Judge Simplicio Cabading was accused of assault by Remberto Carbonell over a payment dispute. Investigations found Cabading acted in self-defense; Carbonell desisted, citing misunderstanding. Supreme Court dismissed the case due to insufficient evidence.
judicial ethics
misconduct
administrative complaint
A

Case Summary (A.M. No. 34-MJ)

Initiation of the Administrative Complaint and Respondent’s Answer

Carbonell filed a letter-complaint with the Secretary of Justice, which endorsed the matter to the then District Judge of the Court of First Instance of Ifugao for investigation. When required to submit an answer, respondent filed his submission on October 31, 1972. In his answer, respondent denied the material allegations that he was intoxicated at the time of the incident and that he inflicted injuries upon Carbonell while in that condition. Respondent instead narrated that Carbonell demanded payment for conducting services, respondent refused to give change prematurely, and an argument ensued. Respondent further alleged that Carbonell became angry, that respondent was struck with a “big knot and bolt” which respondent had picked up from his seat and attempted to hit him with, that respondent parried and the piece rebounded to the face of Carbonell, and that the two struggled before respondent succeeded in wresting the iron from Carbonell. Respondent also denied having a gun, explained that his pistol covered by Sp. No. 370645 had been lost and reported to the Lagawe Philippine Constabulary prior to the incident, and denied any threat to bring back “a battalion of NPA dissidents.” Respondent closed by requesting a formal hearing.

Investigation and Hearing Scheduling Before Judge Abad

The matter was referred to District Judge Francisco M. Abad, who set the hearing for November 21, 1972. On that date, the complainant was absent, but respondent appeared and presented his version. Judge Abad sought to afford the complainant an opportunity to present his side and notified Carbonell that a hearing was scheduled for December 28, 1972. Carbonell requested another date, explaining he was not available. The hearing was then moved to January 26, 1973, but Carbonell again sought postponement, resulting in the selection of February 16, 1973. A further motion to postpone was filed and was denied by Judge Abad in an order dated March 6, 1973.

On March 29, 1973, Judge Abad reported that the hearing had been scheduled several times, yet the complainant and his witnesses failed to appear on those occasions. Judge Abad further reported that only motions to reset the schedule were forwarded, apparently because the complainant filed a motion with the Secretary of Justice seeking a change in the place of investigation. Judge Abad stated that he received and adduced evidence through the testimony of Elizabeth Sobremonte for the respondent and through respondent’s own testimony as early as November 29, 1972. Judge Abad then concluded that, based on the statements of Sobremonte and respondent, Carbonell was the aggressor and respondent acted in instinct of self-preservation to parry the attack.

Manifestation of Desistance and the Court’s Initial Resolution

On April 10, 1973, Carbonell filed a pleading entitled “Manifestation of Desistance.” In that manifestation, Carbonell stated that the incident also gave rise to a less serious physical injuries case pending before the Municipal Court of San Juan, La Union, and that in the related criminal case he had already desisted from prosecution. He averred that both the administrative and criminal matters arose from a single incident, and that he had come to believe there was no cause of action in the administrative case because the incident stemmed from “mere misunderstanding and misapprehension of facts.” Carbonell also admitted that when the incident occurred he stated respondent was intoxicated, but he now realized he could not substantiate that charge, and he characterized the continued complaint as unfair to respondent. He executed the statement freely and asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the administrative complaint.

Instead of granting dismissal, the Court, through its resolution dated September 24, 1973, denied the motion to dismiss and referred the case to the District Judge of the Court of First Instance of San Fernando, La Union for investigation of the reasons behind the complainant’s execution of the affidavit of desistance. The Court ordered the district judge to check the status of Criminal Case No. 882, People vs. Simplicio Cabading, in the Municipal Court of San Juan, La Union, and to proceed with the administrative investigation if warranted by findings.

Report of Judge Daquigan and Recommendation of Dismissal

After a change in assignment, District Judge Angel A. Daquigan took over and received the case referral. On November 17, 1973, Judge Daquigan submitted his report. He stated that there was a move to desist by the complainant not only because the injuries were viewed as accidental and because the parties were closely related, as the complainant’s grandmother was a half sister of respondent’s mother. The report also noted that the criminal complaint filed against the judge in the Municipal Court of San Juan, La Union, arising from the same incident, had already been dismissed. Judge Daquigan expressed conformity with Judge Abad’s earlier conclusions that Carbonell was the aggressor and that respondent acted under the instinct of self-preservation. Judge Daquigan further concluded that the dismissal of the criminal case and the execution of the affidavit of desistance could not be attributed to respondent and recommended that respondent be cleared of the administrative charge.

The Court

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms