A.M. No. 01-9-245-MTC - IN RE: Sardido

Case Summary (A.M. No. 01-9-245-MTC)

Procedural Posture and Nature of the Administrative Case

The MTC judge granted the motion of the private complainants and ordered the Bureau of Immigration to cause the issuance of a hold-departure order against the accused. When required to comment, Judge Sardido explained that, at the time he issued the hold-departure order, he was unaware that he had no authority to do so, and that he acted on his belief that he was authorized. The Court referred the matter for evaluation, and the Deputy Court Administrator, Jose P. Perez, recommended disciplinary action on the finding that Judge Sardido erred in issuing the subject hold-departure order.

Applicable Administrative Framework and Jurisdictional Rule

The Court anchored its assessment on Circular No. 39-97, which provides that hold-departure orders shall be issued only in criminal cases within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts. The Court thus concluded that Municipal Trial Courts do not have jurisdiction to issue hold-departure orders. It followed that Judge Sardido committed an error when he issued the order in an MTC criminal case.

Findings on the Erring Judge’s Error and Lack of Excuse

In addressing Judge Sardido’s explanation, the Court held that his claim of unawareness did not warrant exculpation. The Court observed that Canon 3, Rule 3.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct exhorted judges to be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence, and it reiterated that, in administrative supervision, it had repeatedly reminded judges to exercise due diligence in keeping abreast of legal developments. The Court further noted that Circular No. 39-97 was not a new issuance; it had been circularized in 1997 and had already been the subject of numerous cases before the Court. Against this background, the Court ruled that Judge Sardido could not be excused for his infraction.

Compliance Expectations Under Circular No. 39-97

The Court emphasized that Circular No. 39-97 also promulgated detailed guidelines aimed at preventing indiscriminate issuance of hold-departure orders, avoiding inconvenience to affected parties, and protecting the right and liberty of an individual to travel. It required strict accuracy and completeness of information in the hold-departure order, including the person’s complete name, birth details, last residence, the case title and docket number, the specific nature of the case, and the date of the order, with a recent photograph if available. The circular also required that Regional Trial Courts furnish the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) and the Bureau of Immigration (BI) within twenty-four (24) hours from issuance, using the fastest available means of transmittal. It additionally required cancellation of a hold-departure order upon acquittal or dismissal, with corresponding notice to the DFA and BI within twenty-four (24) hours from promulgation or issuance.

Disposition: Penalty and Warning

The Deputy Court Administrator’s recommendation was adopted by the Court. Since the Court found that Judge Sardido improperly issued a hold-departure order despite the jurisdictional limitation under Circular No. 39-97, and because Circular No. 39-97 had been long in effect, the Court imposed a penalty consistent with its prior practice in simi

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. 01-9-245-MTC)

The case arose from an undated indorsement of Honorable Hernando B. Perez, Secretary of the Department of Justice, concerning a hold-departure order issued by Judge Agustin T. Sardido, Municipal Trial Court of Koronadal, South Cotabato, in Criminal Case No. 19418 titled “People of the Philippines v. Jinky A. Besorio” for estafa.
The matter proceeded as an administrative case for administrative supervision over the conduct of a MTC judge in relation to the issuance of a hold-departure order.

Parties and Procedural Posture

Judge Agustin T. Sardido was the respondent in an administrative matter before the Supreme Court.
The administrative complaint and referral stemmed from the Department of Justice indorsement about the questioned hold-departure order.
When required to comment, Judge Sardido submitted an explanation regarding his lack of awareness of his alleged lack of authority at the time of issuance.
The Deputy Court Administrator Jose P. Perez reviewed the referral and recommended administrative sanctions based on error in the issuance of the hold-departure order.
The Supreme Court reviewed the Deputy Court Administrator’s recommendation under its power of administrative supervision over lower courts.

Key Factual Allegations

The respondent judge granted a motion of the private complainants in Criminal Case No. 19418.
After granting the motion, the respondent judge ordered the Bureau of Immigration to cause the issuance of a hold-departure order against the accused Jinky A. Besorio.
Judge Sardido issued the hold-departure order at a time when he stated he was unaware that he lacked authority to do so.
He further stated that he issued the order based on his belief that he was authorized to issue it.
The Supreme Court treated the issuance as an error because the respondent judge lacked jurisdiction under the applicable circular.

Statutory and Regulatory Framework

Circular No. 39-97 governed the issuance of hold-departure orders and limited their issuance to specific courts and cases.
Circular No. 39-97 provided that hold-departure orders shall be issued only in criminal cases within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts.
Circular No. 39-97 was accompanied by implementation guidelines meant to prevent indiscriminate issuance and to protect the individual’s right and liberty to travel.
Circular No. 39-97 required the Regional Trial Court, within twenty-four (24) hours from issuance, to furnish copies of the hold-departure order to the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) and the Bureau of Immigration (BI) through the fastest available means of transmittal.
Circular No. 39-97 required that hold-departure orders contain specific identifying and case details, including: the person’s complete name (including middle name), date and place of birth, and place of last residence; the complete title and docket number of the case; the specific nature of the case; and the date of the hold-departure order.
Circular No. 39-97 also required cancellation and transmittal upon favorable dispositions, such as acquittal or dismissal, with cancellation included in the judgment or order.
Canon 3, Rule 3.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct required judges to be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence.

Issues Raised

The central administrative issue was whether Judge Agustin T. Sardido commit