Case Summary (A.M. No. RTJ-10-2236)
Factual Background
The matter arose from a property dispute at a titled parcel in Lapasan, Cagayan de Oro. The complainant Salcedo alleged that on January 23, 2008, while supervising construction on the disputed property he co-owns, Jose Tanmalack, Jr. and armed companions forcibly entered, threatened and harassed him and his workers, and damaged materials. Salcedo reported the incident to the local police. Tanmalack was detained that afternoon; his sister Jocelyn filed a handwritten, verified petition for a writ of habeas corpus and writ of amparo on his behalf while he remained in police custody.
Filing, Docketing and Referral to Respondent’s Sala
Clerk of Court Atty. Herlie Luis‑Requerme recounted that the court office received inquiries about amparo procedure late in the afternoon, that the Executive Judge was on leave, and that the second Vice Executive Judge was consulted. The petition was stamped filed at about 4:45 p.m. and, because of personnel movements and an instruction from an administrative officer, was referred directly to Judge Bollozos’s sala (adjacent to the clerk’s office). The clerk’s account emphasizes an urgent atmosphere and an honest belief among personnel that immediate referral to an available judge was appropriate.
Issuance and Service of Writ of Amparo; Subsequent Events
On January 23, 2008, after reviewing the petition and propounding clarificatory questions to petitioner’s representative and counsel, Judge Bollozos issued a writ of amparo directing the authorities at Agora Police Station No. 3, including Insp. Wylen Rojo, to release Tanmalack immediately into the custody of Atty. Francis Ku, not later than 6:00 p.m. the same day. The writ required a verified return within five working days. The writ was served around 5:30 p.m.; the police released Tanmalack to counsel at 6:00 p.m. A summary hearing was held January 25, 2008, during which Officer Rojo appeared and indicated he would not file an answer and that the petitioner had been released; later the parties reportedly agreed the writ be considered permanent.
Administrative Complaint and Its Grounds
Complainant Salcedo filed an administrative complaint against Judge Bollozos, alleging grave misconduct, ignorance of the law, grave abuse of discretion, bias, and partiality. The substantive allegations included that the handwritten petition lacked grounds warranting an amparo; that the respondent acted with undue haste and outside proper procedure (no raffle and immediate assignment); and that the judge was biased in favor of the petitioner because both he and petitioner’s counsel were Masonic brethren.
Respondent Judge’s Explanation and Defenses
In his comment, Judge Bollozos defended his actions as judicial functions performed in good faith. He asserted that (1) under the Amparo Rule any RTC judge may issue the writ at any time and that urgent matters can be immediately acted upon; (2) the petition, though handwritten, was signed and verified and therefore acceptable under the applicable circular; (3) because the incident and alleged deprivation were urgent and contemporaneous, immediate action was warranted to prevent prolonged custody; (4) he propounded clarificatory questions and relied on the information elicited, including facts that suggested an alleged deprivation of liberty; and (5) the police officer’s subsequent statements and refusal to contest the petition supported his finding that issuance was warranted.
OCA Report and Recommendation
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended dismissal of the administrative complaint for lack of merit. The OCA’s evaluation found no irregularity in filing, noted that the detainee’s sister was authorized to file under Section 2(b) of the Amparo Rule, and concluded the petition was filed in the proper venue. The OCA accepted that the respondent judge acted within his judicial duty and that there was no evidence of bad faith, malice, or corrupt motive. The OCA further observed that Officer Rojo’s responses could be read as an admission that petitioner’s liberty was being or threatened to be deprived.
Supreme Court’s Analysis — Applicability of the Writ of Amparo
The Court concurred with the OCA insofar as the administrative complaint lacked merit, but it also held that Judge Bollozos erred substantively in issuing the writ. The Court emphasized that the Rule on the Writ of Amparo, by its terms, is intended to address extralegal killings and enforced disappearances and threats thereto, as well as violations or threats to life, liberty or security in extraordinary circumstances. The Court cited Tapuz v. Del Rosario and reiterated that the amparo remedy does not extend to concerns that are purely property or commercial in nature and that an amparo petition must set out particularized factual allegations and supporting affidavits demonstrating a prima facie threat or violation of the rights to life, liberty or security.
Application of Amparo Standards to the Petition
Applying those standards, the Court concluded Tanmalack’s petition was fatally defective in substance because it did not allege he was a victim of extralegal killing, enforced disappearance, or similar threats; instead the petition merely alleged he was “in custody” and described a property dispute. Under the Rule’s requirements (personal circumstances, identity of respondent, detailed facts of the threatened violation, evidence of investigation, actions taken, and relief prayed for), the petition lacked the specificity and supporting detail required for issuance of the extraordinary writ.
Standards for Administrative Liability of Judges
The Court reiterated fundamental principles on judicial discipline: errors committed by judges in the exercise of adjudicative functions are not, in themselves, ground for administrative sanction. Absent evidence of fraud, dishonesty, corruption, bad faith, palpable partiality, or gross ignorance of the law amounting to inexcusable negligence, judicial errors should be corrected by ordinary or extra
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.M. No. RTJ-10-2236)
Factual Background
- Complainant Ruben N. Salcedo filed a verified Letter-Complaint dated August 29, 2008, charging Judge Gil G. Bollozos, Presiding Judge, RTC Branch 21, Cagayan de Oro City, with Grave Misconduct and Ignorance of the Law in the handling of SPEC. PROC. No. 2008-009 (Jose Tanmalack, Jr., represented by Jocelyn Tanmalack Tan v. Police Officers of Police Precinct No. 3, Agora, Lapasan, Cagayan de Oro City, and Insp. Wylen Rojo).
- The dispute arose from a verified handwritten petition for the Writ of Habeas Corpus and the Writ of Amparo (the petition) filed by Jose Tanmalack, Jr. against police officers of Police Precinct No. 3 and Inspector Wylen Rojo.
- The complainant alleged he is co-owner of a parcel of land (disputed property) covered by O.C.T. No. O-740, registered in the name of Patricio Salcedo; the disputed property is about 126,112 square meters in Lapasan, Cagayan de Oro City.
- On January 23, 2008 at around 2:30 p.m., while Salcedo (with Rebecca R. Lumbay and Alan Jose P. Roa) supervised construction on the disputed property, Jose Tanmalack, Jr. and heavily armed men arrived and forced themselves into the fenced premises.
- Salcedo averred that Tanmalack and companions harassed and threatened to kill and harm him and his workers, uttered defamatory statements accusing him of land-grabbing, occupied the property, and destroyed building materials.
- Salcedo reported the incident to the nearby police station; the police responded, arrested Tanmalack and brought him in for questioning.
- That same afternoon at around 4:45 p.m., while Tanmalack was detained, Tanmalack, represented by his sister Jocelyn Tanmalack Tan, filed the petition.
Contents of the Petition (as filed)
- The petition, dated January 23, 2008 and stamped filed around 4:45 p.m., sought issuance of a writ of habeas corpus and/or writ of amparo to direct Tanmalack’s immediate release from custody at Agora Police Precinct No. 3 under Insp. Wylen Rojo.
- It alleged Tanmalack was “held in custody” after he exercised self-help to prevent squatters from putting up improvements inside titled property under TCT No. T-162749 (stated as titled under petitioner’s sister).
- The petition identified petitioner as Jose Tan Malack Jr., resident c/o Jocelyn TM Tan; respondents as police officers under Rojo and alleged squatters; and prayed for the writ to direct immediate release.
- The petition was signed and verified by Jocelyn Tan Malack Tan, who certified truth of statements and absence of forum-shopping.
Circumstances of Filing and Referral (Clerk of Court narration)
- Clerk of Court Atty. Herlie Luis-Requerme recounted the circumstances regarding filing and referral to the respondent judge:
- In late afternoon of January 23, 2008, a query on procedure for filing a petition for Writ of Amparo was received; existing procedure is to assign cases by raffle or, in urgent cases, by special raffle upon proper motion; raffling was scheduled for next afternoon.
- The Executive Judge was on leave; the clerk consulted 1st Vice Executive Judge Evelyn Gamotin Nery (busy) and then 2nd Vice Executive Judge Ma. Anita Esguerra-Lucagbo.
- Judge Lucagbo clarified the procedure under the Rule on the Writ of Amparo; it was unclear whether any judge can immediately act, but Judge Lucagbo indicated willingness to look at the petition if referred to her.
- Upon return to the office past 5:00 p.m., the clerk found a Petition for Writ of Amparo filed at around 4:45 p.m.
- While the clerk was out, the Docket Clerk Mr. Rudy Exclamador referred the case to Administrative Officer Mary Lyn Charisse Lagamon.
- Believing the clerk no longer around, and because the lawyer insisted immediate referral due to perceived urgency and impending quittance of judges, the Docket Clerk and Admin Officer referred the case to Judge Bollozos since his sala was adjacent and nearest.
- There was no instruction from Judge Lucagbo to have the petition conformed to form; the office acted in what it deemed best under circumstances without ill motive.
Issuance and Service of the Writ of Amparo
- Based on the petition and answers to clarificatory questions posed to petitioner’s representative and counsel, Judge Bollozos immediately issued a Writ of Amparo dated January 23, 2008.
- The writ directed the police officers of Agora Police Station 3 or Insp. Wylen Rojo to release immediately, but not later than 6:00 P.M. that day, petitioner Jose Tanmalack, Jr., to the custody of Atty. Francis V. Ku.
- The writ also directed the police officers to file a verified return to the petition within five (5) working days, together with supporting affidavits, conforming with Section 9 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo.
- Around 5:30 p.m., the Writ of Amparo was served upon SPO3 Aener O. Adajar, PNP Chief Investigator.
- At 6:00 p.m. on January 23, 2008, the police released Tanmalack to custody of Atty. Francis Ku.
Complainant’s Allegations Against the Judge
- Complainant Salcedo questioned the issuance of the Writ of Amparo, claiming it was unusually and hastily issued.
- He asserted that the handwritten petition did not provide grounds to warrant issuance of the Writ of Amparo.
- He alleged the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion, bias and obvious partiality, and in grave disregard of the Rules and rule of law when he acted upon and granted the letter-petition.
- Complainant further alleged that the respondent judge “accommodated” issuance of the writ because the judge and Atty. Francis Ku are members of the Masonic fraternity, implying bias.
Respondent Judge’s Comment and Defense (March 30, 2009)
- Judge Bollozos submitted a Comment responding to the OCA directive, defending his actions:
- He asserted he had no option but to exercise his judicial duty without bias or partiality and did not consider the petitioner’s counsel as a fraternal brother.
- Although the petition prayed for both writs, he deemed it more in consonance with the Rule on the Writ of Amparo.
- He contended it was not improper that the petition was not raffled and was immediately assigned to his sala by the Office of the Clerk of Court, citing Par. 2, Sec. 3 of A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC that any RTC judge can issue a writ and it can be filed any day and any time.
- He emphasized urgency: the petitioner’s sister filed while Tanmalack was detained in late afternoon of a Friday, and without action Tanmalack risked spending the night in jail.
- He maintained the handwritten petition was not improper because Section 5 of the SC Circular requires the petition be signed and verified; he found it sufficient in form and substance.
- Although the Amparo rules mandate immediate issuance if on its face it ought to issue, he propounded clarificatory questions to petitioner’s representative and counsel and elicited material facts, including:
- The property in question was under petitioner’s possession and registered under TCT No. T-1627491; intruders wanted to fence and put up improvements.
- Petitioner prevented intrusion causing heated arguments and altercations; he went to the police station to blotter his complaint.
- Upon petitioner’s arrival at the station, alleged intruders introduced themselves as ow