Case Summary (A.M. No. RTJ-92-876)
Key Dates
August 10, 1992 – Presidential announcement (newspaper reported) lifting all foreign exchange restrictions
August 11, 1992 – Newspaper publications (Philippine Daily Inquirer, Daily Globe)
August 13, 1992 – Judge Muro’s motu proprio order dismissing the eleven cases
August 19, 1992 – Administrative letter-complaint filed against Judge Muro
September 8, 1992 – Supreme Court resolution requiring Judge Muro’s comment
April 29, 1993 – Court of Appeals sets aside Judge Muro’s dismissal order
September 19, 1994 – Supreme Court decision
Applicable Law
– 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision post-1990)
– Code of Judicial Conduct Rules 2.01 (promote public confidence), 3.01 (faithful to law), 3.02 (diligent fact-finding)
– Rule 129, Sec. 2 (judicial notice)
– Central Bank Circulars Nos. 960, 1318, 1353 and Sec. 34, R.A. 265 (penal provisions)
– Jurisprudence on repeal of penal laws, saving clauses, and double jeopardy
Factual Background
Judge Muro dismissed, on the basis of press reports of a presidential announcement, eleven pending criminal cases alleging violation of foreign exchange regulations. He concluded that the reported lifting of controls repealed Circular 960 and thus deprived the court of jurisdiction. No official Central Bank circular repealing the regulation had yet been published or taken effect.
Procedural History
– Complainants alleged ignorance of law, grave misconduct, and breaches of the Code of Judicial Conduct by issuing a premature, motu proprio dismissal without notice or hearing.
– Judge Muro’s comment: reliance on an absolute presidential announcement, exercise of judicial notice, inapplicability of saving clause to Circular 960.
– Prosecutors’ reply: saving clauses in Circulars 1318 and 1353 preserve jurisdiction over cases involving Circular 960; premature disposition evidenced bias.
– CA overturned Judge Muro’s dismissal for acting in excess of jurisdiction, failure to await official publication, and denial of prosecutorial opportunity to be heard.
– OCA recommended administrative action; case returned to the full Court.
Issues Presented
- Whether Judge Muro violated his duty under the Code of Judicial Conduct by taking judicial notice of a not-yet-effective regulation and dismissing cases on unverified newspaper reports.
- Whether the saving clauses of Central Bank Circulars 1318 and 1353 preserved jurisdiction over the pending cases.
- Whether the motu proprio dismissal denied the prosecution due process and opened double-jeopardy concerns.
- Appropriate administrative sanction for any proven misconduct or gross ignorance of the law.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
– A judge must exhibit thorough, continuing legal study and may not dispense with procedural safeguards or rely on hearsay (newspaper reports) to dismiss criminal cases.
– Judicial notice is limited to facts of general knowledge and cannot extend to statutes or regulations not yet in force.
– Circular 1353’s saving clause expressly preserves pending actions under former regulations, and Circular 1318 similarly excepted Circular 960 from repeal for pending cases.
– Sua sponte dismissal without motion, comment, or hearing violated elementary due process and suggested partiality and bias.
– Premature dismissal after arraignment risked double jeopardy; appellate remedy cannot cure a fundamental jurisdictional defect.
– Prior decisions condemn gross ignorance of law and abuse of judicial discretion in analogous circumstances.
Supreme Court’s Holding
Judge
Case Syllabus (A.M. No. RTJ-92-876)
Normative Principles on Judicial Qualifications
- A judge’s primary duty is continuous study and mastery of the law owed to the public and legal profession.
- Judicial eminence requires profound learning, tireless research, and skilled use of legal doctrines.
- Party litigants’ confidence depends on judges exhibiting more than cursory acquaintance with statutes and procedural rules.
Letter-Complaint by State Prosecutors
- Dated August 19, 1992, filed by State Prosecutors Nilo C. Mariano, George C. Dee, and Paterno V. Tac-an.
- Charged Judge Muro with ignorance of the law, grave misconduct, and violations of Code of Judicial Conduct Rules 2.01, 3.01, and 3.02.
- Allegations centered on the August 13, 1992 order dismissing eleven consolidated criminal cases against Imelda R. Marcos for violations of CB Circular No. 960 (in relation to Sec. 34, R.A. 265).
- Criticized reliance solely on newspaper reports of the President’s announcement lifting foreign-exchange restrictions.
- Asserted the order was premature, denied due process, and exposed bias and partiality.
Respondent Judge’s Order of Dismissal
- Noted Presidential announcement (Aug. 10, 1992) lifting all foreign-exchange restrictions, reported by Philippine Daily Inquirer and Daily Globe (Aug. 11 issues).
- Took judicial notice of these reports under Rule 129 without formal proof.
- Cited Supreme Court doctrine that repeal of a penal law divests courts of jurisdiction over offenses committed under the repealed law.
- Dismissed motu proprio all eleven pending cases to avoid exercising jurisdiction over an allegedly extinct penal regulation.
Respondent Judge’s Comment to Complaint
- Argued no need to await official publication of the repealing circular because the President’s announcement was absolute, immediate, and unqualified.
- Claimed reliance on an erroneous presidential statement corrected only on August 17, 1992 (published Aug. 18).
- Interpreted saving clause in CB Circular No. 1353 as applying only to CB Circular No. 1318, not CB 960.
- Maintained that a judge’s honest mistake does not necessarily show ignorance of the law.
- Invoked discretionary power to take judicial notice of matters of public knowledge.
- Accused complainants of breaching confidentiality by publicizing the administrative complaint.
Complainants’ Reply and Supplemental Reply
- Pointed out Section 111 of CB Circular No. 1318 contains a saving clause expressly including Circular No. 960.
- Emphasized Section 16 of CB Circular No. 1353 similarly preserves pendin