MAYOR DELFIN T. TING, COMPLAINANT, VS. HON. ELPIDIO B. ATAL, MUNICIPAL JUDGE, BRANCH 2, TUGUEGARAO, CAGAYAN, RESPONDENT.

Complainant Mayor Delfin T. Ting charged respondent Judge Elpidio
B. Atal of the Municipal Trial Court, Branch 2, Tuguegarao, Cagayan with
Ignorance of the Law and Incom­petence in relation to Criminal Case No. 15192
for Bribery and Criminal Case No. 15193 for Violation of Republic Act No. 3019
(Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).

Both cases were filed in respondent judge’s court against Vicente
Miguel y Ablan a Supervising Examiner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue for
allegedly receiving Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) from one Mary Jane
Tolentino y Blancas for the settlement of the Non-VAT Registration of the
latter’s Pretty Look Garments. Vicente
Miguel allegedly demanded the amount from Tolentino, otherwise, the latter
would be reported as a delinquent taxpayer.

The counsel for the accused filed a motion to quash on the ground
that the cases are within the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan.

Respondent judge in an Order dated 10 June 1993 granted the
motion to quash and directed the release of the cash bond posted by the accused
and further directed that the charges be filed in the proper forum.

In his complaint, Mayor Ting contends that Judge Atal should not
have dismissed the cases since the latter has the authority to conduct a
preliminary investigation in the two (2) cases. Mayor Ting further contends that the acts of respondent judge
constitute gross ignorance of the law and incompetence which are grounds for
dismissal from the service.

The rules of procedure relevant to the two (2) criminal cases are
Section 3(4) and Section 4(g) of Administrative Order No. 7, Rules of Procedure
of the Office of the Ombudsman which provide:

“Sec. 3 – Preliminary Investigation: who may conduct: Preliminary
investigation may be conducted by the following:

xxx xxx xxx

(4). Investigating Officials authorized by law to
conduct preliminary investigation.”

“Sec. 4 – Procedure

xxx xxx xxx

(g). Upon termination of the preliminary
investigation, the investigating officer shall forward the records of the case
together with his resolution to the designated authorities for their
appropriate action.

No information may be filed and no complaint may be dismissed
without the written authority or approval of the Ombudsman in cases falling within
the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan or of the proper Deputy Ombudsman in all
other cases.”

Section 2(b) Rule 112 of the Rules of Court authorizes judges of
Municipal Trial Courts to conduct preliminary investigations.

It is clear that respondent Judge Atal erred in dismis­sing the
cases and in not conducting the preliminary investigation therein.

The circumstances however do not warrant the dismissal from the
service of respondent judge.

It is of note that the dismissal of the cases was not entirely without
legal basis. Respondent judge in his
comment stated that he dismissed the cases for lack of jurisdiction. Respondent judge would have been correct
except that the aforementioned Administrative Order No. 7 expressly grants him
the authority to conduct the prelimi­nary investigation in cases falling within
the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. While it is true that respondent judge failed in his duty to be updated
in his knowledge of law, good faith and the lack of intent to cause prejudice
or damage should be considered in his favor. In Consolidated Bank and Trust Corporation v. Hon. Dionisio M.
Capistrano,^[1]
this Court stated:

“To be sure, good faith and absence of malice and corrupt
motives or improper consideration are sufficient defenses protecting a judicial
officer charged with ignorance of the law and promulgation of an unjust
decision from being held accountable for errors of judgment, on the premise
that no one called upon to try the facts or interpret the law in the
administration of justice can be infallible.”

Good faith and lack of malicious intent however cannot completely
free respondent Judge Elpidio B. Atal from liability.

The role of justices and judges in the administration of justice
requires a continuous study of the law and juris­prudence. Respondent judge in this case failed to meet
this requirement and standard.

WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Elpidio B. Atal is hereby
ORDERED to pay a Fine of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000,00) for his failure to keep
himself updated on the law and further given a STERN WARNING that the
commission of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Regalado, Nocon, and Puno, JJ., concur.

^[1]
A.M. NO. R-66-RTJ, 18 March 1988, 159 SCRA 47