A.M. No. MTJ-07-1666 - Uy vs. Javellana

Case Summary (A.M. No. MTJ-07-1666)

Petitioner / Complainants’ Allegations

The public attorneys charged Javellana with gross ignorance of law and procedure, gross incompetence, neglect of duty, conduct improper and unbecoming of a judge, and grave misconduct. Specific allegations included: (1) failure to apply the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure in various cases (e.g., issuance of a warrant in People v. Cornelio; conducting preliminary investigation and preliminary examination in people v. Lopez; refusal to dismiss for Lupon noncompliance in People v. Celeste); (2) apparent favoritism and improper relationship with a surety bond agent, Leilani Lania Manunag, including directing parties to her and accepting surety arrangements influenced by her; (3) issuing warrants without proper inquiry contrary to Section 6(b), Rule 112; (4) proceeding with preliminary investigation without advising rights in People v. Bautista; (5) habitual tardiness and failure to set specific hearing times; (6) inconsistent application of rules depending on parties or personal relations; (7) refusal to accept pleadings prepared by PAO but signed only by accused; (8) improper public rebukes of public attorneys and filing complaints about them with incorrect authorities; and (9) corroborating anonymous staff observations (hand‑written note) describing additional misconduct and irregularities.

Respondent’s Answer and Defenses

Judge Javellana denied the material allegations, characterizing them as baseless and malicious. He defended his rulings as proper exercises of judicial discretion: issuing a warrant in People v. Cornelio based on information that the accused were wanted for attempted homicide; rejecting Lupon referral as non‑jurisdictional in People v. Celeste and treating dismissal motions as prohibited pleadings; conducting preliminary questioning in cases he believed required clarification; asserting that Manunag was an authorized surety bond agent and that referrals were official business rather than favoritism; explaining tardiness on medical grounds (diabetes); and alleging that certain staff allegations came from a disgruntled employee, Ray D. Pineda. He also argued that matters involving judicial discretion were not proper administrative grievances.

Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis

Governing constitution: 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision rendered 2012). Governing procedural and disciplinary authorities relied upon: the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure (Rule 112, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, with cited Sections 1, 11, 12, 13, 16, 18, 19); Section 6(b), Rule 112; the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary (Canons on Integrity, Impartiality, Propriety, Equality, Competence and Diligence, and specific sections cited); Rule 140, Sections 8 and 11 of the Rules of Court (classification of offenses and penalties for judicial officers); and relevant precedents interpreting application and disciplinary consequences for failure to apply the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure.

OCA Findings and Recommendation

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found Javellana liable for (1) gross ignorance of the law or procedure for failing to apply the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure where applicable; and (2) gross misconduct for engaging in business relations or giving the appearance of favoritism with a surety agent, inconsistently applying procedural rules, and engaging in self‑promoting behavior. The OCA recommended re‑docketing the complaint as a regular administrative matter and suspending Judge Javellana without salary and benefits for three (3) months with a stern warning.

Court’s Analysis — Gross Ignorance of the Law (Summary Procedure)

The Court analyzed the scope and mandatory aspects of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure and its application to the cited cases. Malicious mischief cases (People v. Cornelio and People v. Lopez) involved damage amounts (P6,000 and P3,000) falling within Article 329 of the Revised Penal Code, carrying maximum imprisonment not exceeding six months; thus these cases fell squarely within the Rule’s coverage. The Court held that: (a) issuance of a warrant in People v. Cornelio violated Section 16 of the Rule because the court shall not order arrest except for failure to appear, and the judge’s justification (that the accused were wanted in another, distinct case) was legally untenable; (b) conducting a preliminary investigation in People v. Lopez contravened the Summary Rule, which prescribes commencement and disposition mechanics that do not include preliminary investigations for offenses with penalties below the threshold requiring such investigation; and (c) in People v. Celeste the judge erred in denying a motion to dismiss for failure to refer the case to the Lupon Tagapamayapa, because Sections 18 and 19(a) expressly require dismissal without prejudice where Lupon referral is a prerequisite and not complied with. The Court emphasized that judges must apply the Summary Rule when its application is plainly applicable and that failure to do so constitutes gross ignorance of the law, noting prior precedent that such failures need not be deliberate to warrant disciplinary consequences.

Court’s Analysis — Gross Misconduct (Conduct and Appearance)

Applying the New Code of Judicial Conduct, the Court concluded Javellana committed gross misconduct. Key findings included: (1) by referring accused directly to an accredited surety agent and permitting or fostering the impression of favoritism toward that agent, the judge created an appearance of impropriety and possible financial benefit, violating duties to avoid impropriety and its appearance and to not lend the prestige of office to private interests; (2) inconsistent rulings on similar motions (e.g., motions for extension of time signed only by accused) demonstrated arbitrary conduct without satisfactory justification and prejudiced PAO lawyers, undermining impartiality and equal treatment; and (3) repeated self‑referential and self‑promoting remarks were inconsistent with judicial propriety and undermined public confidence. The Court invoked canons requiring judges to behave so as to maintain public faith in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality, and reiterated that vainglory or seeking publicity for personal glorification is proscribed. The Court found these acts to amou

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. MTJ-07-1666)

Case Caption, Docket and Decision

Citation: 694 Phil. 159, First Division; A.M. No. MTJ-07-1666 (Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 05-1761-MTJ).
Decision date: September 05, 2012.
Complainants: Public Attorneys Gerlie M. Uy and Ma. Consolacion T. Bascug, Public Attorney’s Office (PAO), La Carlota District.
Respondent: Judge Erwin B. Javellana, Presiding Judge, Municipal Trial Court (MTC), La Castellana, Negros Occidental.
Decision author: Justice Leonardo-De Castro. Concurrence: Sereno, C.J. (Chairperson), Bersamin, Villarama, Jr., and Reyes, JJ.
Source materials: Verified complaint (Rollo pp. 2–24), respondent’s Comment (Rollo pp. 165–190), anonymous staff note (Exh. “PP”, Rollo pp. 150–152), OCA report (Rollo pp. 307–320) and other records and exhibits cited in the rollo.

Nature of the Administrative Complaint — General Allegations

The complaint charged Judge Javellana with: gross ignorance of the law and procedures; gross incompetence; neglect of duty; conduct improper and unbecoming of a judge; grave misconduct; and other related charges as stated in the verified complaint filed by Public Attorneys Uy and Bascug.
The complaint presented a series of factual allegations and examples across multiple criminal and civil matters presided over by Judge Javellana to substantiate the charges.

Specific Allegations Relating to the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure

Complainants alleged gross ignorance of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, citing specific instances:
- People v. Cornelio (Crim. Case No. 04-097, Malicious Mischief): Judge Javellana issued a warrant of arrest after filing despite Section 16 of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure prohibiting court-ordered arrest except for failure to appear.
- People v. Celeste, et al. (Crim. Case No. 04-075, Trespass to Dwelling): Judge Javellana refused to grant a motion to dismiss for non-compliance with the Lupon requirement under Sections 18 and 19(a) of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure and insisted that such a motion was a prohibited pleading.
- People v. Celeste, et al.: Judge Javellana refused to dismiss the complaint outright even though the complainant’s and witnesses’ affidavits were alleged hearsay and patently without basis or merit.
- People v. Lopez, et al. (Crim. Case No. 02-056, Malicious Mischief): Judge Javellana allegedly did not apply the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, instead conducting a preliminary examination/investigation in accordance with the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, and then set the case for arraignment and pre-trial despite evident lack of personal knowledge by complainant and witnesses.

Specific Allegations Relating to Surety Agent Leilani “Alania” Manunag

Complainants alleged that Judge Javellana gave the impression of being a co-agent or otherwise unduly connected with one Leilani Alania Manunag (Manunag), an agent of a surety company, and that Manunag was represented as being in a special position to influence the judge in granting provisional liberty.
Specific factual allegations regarding Manunag’s involvement and the judge’s conduct included:
- Instructing a wife of an accused to file (or hand) a Motion to Reduce Bond with Manunag, leading to the motion not being filed with the MTC and the accused being released on a surety bond issued by Manunag’s company (for which premiums remained payable).
- Reducing bail amounts consistent with the amount Manunag instructed a representative to seek (e.g., reducing from P40,000 to P30,000), and not necessarily to amounts sought by PAO counsel or recommended by police.
- Failing to warn Manunag against involvement in court processes despite her engagement in surety insurance and failing to question counter-affidavits prepared by Manunag.
- Instructing relatives to go to Manunag to “process” an affidavit of desistance, with Manunag charging fees for such services.
- Granting motions to reduce bail that were facilitated by Manunag or her intimate friend/agent even when not set for hearing and in apparent breach of procedural rules.
- Denying certain motions (e.g., Motion to Extend Time to File Counter-Affidavit) on technical grounds while granting others facilitated by Manunag, creating an impression of favoritism.
- Issuing warrants of arrest in several instances where the accompanying bail bonds were facilitated by Manunag.

Allegations Concerning Issuance of Warrants, Searching Questions and Constitutional Rights

Complainants alleged violation of Section 6(b), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure: issuance of warrants of arrest without propounding searching questions to complainants and their witnesses to determine the necessity of custody.
Alleged result: warrants issued even when the accused had voluntarily surrendered or when a warrantless arrest had already been effected.
Complainants further alleged violation of constitutional rights (Section 12(1), Article III of the Constitution) in People v. Bautista (Crim. Case No. 03-097) — setting the case for preliminary investigation when the accused had no counsel and proceeding without informing him of the rights to remain silent and to have counsel.

Allegations on Habitual Tardiness, Procedural Irregularities and Conduct Toward PAO

Habitual tardiness allegation: In Villanueva v. Regalado (Civil Case No. 05-001), subpoenas stated hearing “in the morning” without specific time; Judge Javellana failed to appear for pre-trial set April 14, 2005, and also did not appear for subsequent resets (April 15 and May 3, 2005), prompting rescheduling to 1:30 p.m.
Alleged whimsical or inconsistent implementation of laws and rules depending on parties, their stature, accompanying persons, and personal relations; examples include inconsistent rulings on Motions for Extension of Time to File Counter-Affidavits and grant/denial patterns allegedly influenced by personal animus or favoritism.
Alleged practice of treating litigants as “made for the courts” rather than “courts for the litigants”: e.g., People v. Fermin (Crim. Case No. 03-104) — refusal to accept a Petition/Application for Probation prepared by the PAO but signed only by the accused, requiring physical return to PAO in La Carlota.
Allegations of improper procedure in airing complaints against PAO lawyers: rebukes in court orders, misleading statements in orders (e.g., misrepresenting a PAO lawyer’s attendance), reporting PAO lawyers to incorrect authorities (DOJ or DPA Bacolod instead of DPA La Carlota or PAO Regional Director), requiring explanations without verifying who prepared motions and thereby violating due process, and encroaching upon PAO managerial concerns.

The Anonymous Staff Note (Exhibit “PP”) — Content and Examples

The complainants attached a hand-written note containing observations by an anonymous member of the judge’s staff (pages set out in the rollo). Key contents included:
- Allegation that the judge reports to duty after 11:00 a.m. and hurriedly conducts preliminary investigations/examinations after making parties wait from 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.; litigants sometimes leave due to waiting and the judge foregoes examinations.
- Allegation that the judge spends much time conversing in cafeterias and signs affidavits there, and that litigants bring affidavits to the cafeteria for signature.
- Allegation of repeated public boasts in court and even while solemnizing marriages about being an “intelligent Judge,” a former criminal lawyer, involvement in high-profile cases (Gargar-Lumangyao, Spider Hunter, execution of Col. Torres), and statements denying subservience to local officials.
- Allegation that the judge tolerates negligence of a court utility worker, who allegedly fail
...continue reading