Case Summary (A.M. No. MTJ-03-1500)
Allegations of Bias and Non-Inclusion of Cases
Dadula's complaint, filed on January 15, 1998, stems from the failure of the court to calendar his pending Criminal Cases Nos. 18747 to 18751 on November 12, 1997. Dadula claims the presence of the accused family influenced the non-inclusion of these cases, suggesting a conspiracy among the court officials to prejudge the outcome of his anti-graft complaints. His attorney, Atty. Makilito B. Mahinay, formally protested the omission, seeking explanations from the Clerk of Court.
Counter-Claims and Judicial Proceedings
In a retaliatory move, Atty. Arturo Revil filed a perjury case against Dadula, prompting Dadula to argue that Judge Ginete issued a warrant for his arrest without conducting the mandated personal examination of witnesses. Dadula alleged manipulation of court records, claiming a transcript of a supposed examination was inserted incorrectly after the fact. His bond for temporary liberty was set at P12,000, and he sought various remedies including a transfer venue of his criminal cases.
Court's Initial Investigation Findings
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) investigated the claims and noted that the requests for remedies were outside its purview. Instead, the OCA recommended requiring responses from the accused court personnel regarding the allegations. It was revealed that the non-inclusion stemmed from a clerical error by Almoradie, who mistakenly believed the cases were to be scheduled for a later date.
Testimonies and Official Reports
Investigating Judge Ricardo M. Merdegia confirmed the occurrence of a clerical error and criticized Atty. Mahinay for purportedly being untruthful regarding the timing of his appearance in court. Judge Merdegia underscored the challenges of determining bias based solely on circumstantial evidence and found that a straightforward explanation for the calendaring issue existed.
Further Recommendations and Investigations
After subsequent court proceedings and a lack of desire from either party to pursue personal grievances, a complete investigation was deemed unnecessary by Judge Maximino R. Ables, who concluded that no administrative infraction occurred, barring the inadvertent mistake of Conag. The assessment supported the notion that since both parties had since reconciled and
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.M. No. MTJ-03-1500)
Case Background
- Complainant: Leonardo P. Dadula
- Respondents: Judge Manuel V. Ginete, Clerk of Court Atty. Dioscoro V. Conag, Process Server Rolly Almoradie
- Jurisdiction: Municipal Trial Court (MTC), Masbate; Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 45, Masbate
- Case Reference: A.M. No. MTJ-03-1500, March 18, 2005
Complaint Details
- Complainant filed a letter complaint on January 15, 1998, alleging bias, partiality, and conduct prejudicial to the service.
- The complaint arose after Dadula filed graft charges against former School Division Superintendent Hilda Revil and her family, which led to the filing of five counts of graft before the RTC.
- On November 12, 1997, Dadula and his counsel appeared for a scheduled hearing but found their cases absent from the court's calendar.
- Atty. Makilito B. Mahinay, Dadula's counsel, requested inclusion of their cases, which was denied by the court personnel.
Allegations of Impropriety
- Dadula suspected that the non-inclusion of their cases was influenced by the presence of the accused, particularly Hilda Revil and Atty. Arturo Revil.
- Following the incident, Atty. Arturo Revil filed a perjury case against Dadula, which Dadula claimed was manipulated by Judge Ginete who issued a warrant for his arrest without proper examination.
- Dadula alleged that a transcript of the examination was later inserted into the case records to legitimize the warrant's issuance.
Requests for Relief
- Dadula sought:
- Transfer of venue for the graft cases to Manila.
- Assignment of a state prosecutor for the prosecution of the criminal cases.
- Disqualification of Ju