A.M. No. RTJ-95-1324 - Manahon vs. Tan

Case Summary (A.M. No. RTJ-95-1324)

Factual Background

Manahon alleged that respondent Judge Tan issued an order for his arrest in Criminal Case No. 1427, a case assigned to different branches through indorsements. He stated that the arrest order was shown in an indorsement of Judge Winston Villegas dated 17 May 1994. After his arrest on 19 July 1994, Manahon averred that even after he posted cash bond that same day in the afternoon, respondent refused to issue the order for his release. Manahon further alleged that respondent’s refusal was motivated by revenge, tied to the fact that Manahon had been administratively charging respondent through Manahon’s sister. Manahon claimed that the refusal was meant to make him “sleep, rot and be killed in jail.”

Respondent’s Explanation and the Chain of Case Assignments

Judge Tan responded that the criminal case concerning Manahon had been forwarded to his branch in exchange for Criminal Case No. 10577, pursuant to a second indorsement dated 27 June 1994. He maintained that he issued the arrest order only after a careful study of the information and supporting documents. With respect to Manahon’s release, Judge Tan explained that he ordered release only on 20 July 1994 because the Undertaking on Cash Bail was subscribed and sworn to only on that date, and he also relied on Manahon’s residence certificate dated 20 July 1994. Respondent thus attributed the timing of release to procedural requirements not satisfied until 20 July 1994, rather than to malice or bad faith.

Supreme Court’s Referral for Comment and the Executive Judge’s Account

On 21 June 1995, the Court required Executive Judge Pacifico Bulado (RTC Branch 33, Dumaguete City) to comment on the exchange of cases without raffle and to forward the records. Judge Bulado submitted a detailed comment explaining four “routes” concerning the movement of Criminal Case No. 11427 and the exchange involving forestry law violations, consolidation, and subsequent re-raffle.

First, Judge Bulado explained that the case was originally filed in March 1994 and raffled according to Administrative Circular No. 7 of the Supreme Court dated 23 September 1974, which governed uniform assignment and distribution. He stated that the raffle held on 16 March 1994 resulted in the assignment to RTC Branch 43, presided over by Judge Winston M. Villegas.

Second, he narrated a consolidation involving another case pending in the same court system. A rape case and an acts of lasciviousness case were consolidated by order of RTC Branch 34 Judge Rosendo B. Bandal, Jr. and, by virtue of the consolidation, the records were transferred to Branch 43 because it held the lower-numbered criminal case. He stated that because the case was transferred to Branch 43, it had to be exchanged or replaced by a criminal case of similar nature and status, and that this exchange led to the transfer back to Branch 34 of a case involving Manahon.

Third, Judge Bulado then addressed the alleged absence of raffle in a particular exchange. He stated that a motion dated 18 May 1994 was filed by the Provincial Prosecutor II to transfer a forestry law case, People of the Philippines v. Antioco Ponce, et al. (designated as Criminal Case No. 10577), to Branch 34 because that branch functioned as a Special Court for forestry law violations pursuant to Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 150-93 dated 19 August 1993. He explained that after Judge Tan granted the transfer order and directed the Clerk of Court to forward the records of the forestry case to Branch 34 subject to an exchange of another case of the same nature, the exchange occurred through an indorsement dated 27 June 1994 from Branch 34 to Branch 44, resulting in Manahon’s qualified theft case being referred to Judge Tan’s sala. Judge Bulado asserted that the absence of a raffle in this exchange was justified by the consolidation rule he cited and by the logic of the exchange tied to special-court designation.

Fourth, Judge Bulado related subsequent developments after the case reached Judge Tan’s branch. He recounted that Manahon filed an application seeking inhibition, which Judge Tan granted. Judge Tan then forwarded the records to the Office of the Executive Judge for a re-raffle subject to exchange on 18 August 1994. Judge Bulado stated that on 24 August 1994 there was a re-raffle and the case was reassigned to RTC Branch 31, presided by retired Judge Jesus C. Magno. He further described that the administrative case was referred for investigation to then Associate Justice Arturo B. Buena of the Court of Appeals. He also described later postponements tied to Manahon’s motions, including a change of venue request denied by the Court and the delegation of the reception of evidence to various designated judges, culminating in the eventual investigation conduct by Judge Temistocles B. Diez and then Judge Eleuterio E. Chiu’s involvement in earlier stages.

Investigation Proceedings and Manahon’s Withdrawal

The record, as presented through the report and the subsequent proceedings, showed that despite the complainant’s affidavit of desistance and the later termination recommendations, the case proceeded in the administrative lane because deprivation of liberty was involved and because the charge could not depend entirely on the complainant’s will.

The narrative includes a pivotal moment during the reception of evidence. When the case was called for the reception of Manahon’s evidence, counsel Atty. Elpidio Unto manifested that there was no evidence to support the charge against respondent. Manahon confirmed the manifestation. The proceedings reflect that the Court interrogated counsel and complainant, and complainant acknowledged that he realized there was really no evidence against Judge Tan and that he desired to withdraw the complaint because he had no evidence against the judge. Thereafter, Manahon filed a written motion to withdraw the complaint and executed an Affidavit of Desistance seeking dismissal of the administrative complaint because he could not prove his case. Based on the absence of evidence admitted by complainant and the withdrawal and desistance, the investigating judge (Judge Chiu, as narrated) terminated the investigation and recommended dismissal.

Report of Justice Umali and the Evaluation Despite Desistance

After reassignment due to the appointment of Justice Arturo Buena as Associate Justice of the Court, the case was evaluated by Associate Justice Mariano Umali of the Court of Appeals. In his Report of 30 June 1999, Justice Umali addressed the merits despite Manahon’s desistance. The report articulated that in administrative cases, the charge should not be made to depend on the will of the complainant, and that the investigation may proceed notwithstanding desistance, particularly where the deprivation of liberty was at stake.

Justice Umali found that the original raffling of the case to Branch 43 (under Judge Winston Villegas) and its later transfers to Branch 34 and then to Judge Tan’s sala through exchanges were not irregular. He determined that the transfers resulted from exchanges connected with consolidation and with the special-court handling of forestry law violations. Justice Umali also addressed the central factual allegation that Judge Tan harassed Manahon by releasing him only on 20 July 1994 despite posting cash bond on 19 July 1994. Justice Umali held that this allegation was not supported by sufficient evidence, and he found no showing that respondent’s act was motivated by malice or bad faith.

The Parties’ Core Positions on the Merits

Manahon’s position rested on the claim that his arrest and continued detention were unjustified and that Judge Tan acted with improper motives in delaying release even after cash bond was posted. He portrayed the delay as revenge-related, linked to administrative charging by his sister.

Judge Tan’s position rested on procedural explanations and case-assignment justifications. He maintained that the forwarding and exchange of cases reflected court administration rules and exchanges tied to consolidation and special-court designation, and he asserted that the release was ordered only when the Undertaking on Cash Bail and supporting documents were properly subscribed and sworn, with his explanation

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. RTJ-95-1324)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Evaristo Manahon filed a sworn administrative complaint against Judge Alvin I. Tan, then of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Negros Oriental, Branch 44, Dumaguete City, alleging Illegal Arrest and Detention, Grave Abuse of Discretion, and Abuse of Authority.
The complaint was addressed to the Chief Justice and was supported by an affidavit subscribed before the Provincial Prosecutor of Negros Oriental.
The case proceeded through administrative evaluation and report-writing within the appellate level of the judiciary.
The Court ultimately dismissed and terminated the administrative case for utter lack of merit and lack of evidence.

Key Factual Allegations

The complainant alleged that the respondent judge issued an order for his arrest in Criminal Case No. 1427, which was said to have been assigned to Judge Rosendo Bandal, Jr. of Branch 34.
The complainant stated that he was arrested on 19 July 1994.
The complainant alleged that he posted a cash bond on the afternoon of 19 July 1994, yet respondent allegedly refused to issue an order for his release.
The complainant further alleged that respondent wanted him to “sleep, rot and be killed in jail” in revenge for the complainant having been administratively charged by the complainant’s sister.
The respondent denied any improper motive and explained the timing of his actions by reference to judicial study of the information and supporting documents.
The respondent asserted that release was ordered only on 20 July 1994 because the Undertaking on Cash Bail was subscribed and sworn only on that date, supported by complainant’s residence certificate dated 20 July 1994.
The records also showed that the criminal case involved multiple court transfers and exchanges among RTC branches before reaching respondent’s sala.

Judicial Case-Assignment History

The Court considered the case-assignment routes and exchanges through the Executive Judge’s comment, which described the procedural history of the underlying criminal matter.
The Executive Judge explained that the criminal case was first raffled pursuant to Administrative Circular No. 7 dated September 23, 1974.
The comment stated that after raffle, the case was assigned to RTC Branch 43 presided by Judge Winston M. Villegas.
The comment described a consolidation-related transfer where the records were moved between branches without a new raffle because the exchange was justified by the consolidation rule.
The Executive Judge further related a transfer connected to forestry-law specialization, citing Administrative Order No. 150-93 dated August 19, 1993, which created a special court for forestry law violations.
The comment stated that Provincial Prosecutor II, Diosdado D. Hermosa, filed a motion dated May 18, 1994 to transfer Criminal Case No. 10577 to RTC Branch 34, and that respondent granted the motion through an order dated May 20, 1994, directing the clerk of court to forward the records subject to an exchange.
The Executive Judge described that the exchange occurred through an indorsement dated June 27, 1994, with the case then received by respondent’s branch.
The comment also stated that, after a motion to inhibit and subsequent referral, a re-raffle was conducted and the case was reassigned during August 1994 to another RTC branch presided by Judge Jesus C. Magno.
The comment further stated that hearings in August 1995 were cancelled at the complainant’s motion, and that venue-related matters were litigated before delegation of evidence reception to different judges.

Administrative Investigation Conduct

After referral for investigation, hearings were set for 9, 10, and 11 August 1995, but these were cancelled on motion of the complainant.
The complainant later requested a change of venue on financial grounds, and the request was denied.
The investigatory phase delegated reception of evidence to Executive Judge Eleuterio E. Chiu (later revoked), then to Judge Temistocles B. Diez, who inhibited himself due to alleged relation