MAYOR PERLITA LIBARDOS, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE ABDULLAH M. CASAR, RESPONDENT.

A sworn complaint, dated
27 October 1992, was filed before this court by complainant, Mayor
Perlita P. Libardos of Maigo, Lanao del
Norte, against respondent Judge Abdullah M. Casar of the Municipal Circuit
Trial Court (MCTC), Kolambugan-Maigo, Lanao del Norte, for gross ignorance of
the law, grave misconduct, arbitrariness and conduct unbecoming a judge.

The complaint is an
offshoot of an order dated 14 May 1992 in Special Proceedings No. 19, issued by
respondent restraining the COMELEC Board of Canvassers of Maigo, Lanao
del Norte, from canvassing the election returns of Precinct No. 10-A until
either the COMELEC or the Regional Trial Court in Iligan City could act on the
petition of Wilfredo P. Randa, a mayoralty candidate of the Nationalist
People’s Coalition (NPC).

Complainant alleged that she was an official mayoralty candidate
of the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP) in Maigo, Lanao del Norte, in the synchronized national and local
elections held on 11 May 1992; that during the canvassing of the election
returns, the candidate of the Nationalist People’s Coalition (NPC), Wilfredo
Randa, filed a complaint for Preliminary Injunction with the Municipal Circuit
Trial Court (MCTC) of Kolambugan-Maigo, Lanao del Norte, presided over by
respondent judge, docketed as Special
Proceedings No. 19, entitled “Wilfredo P. Randa, candidate for Mayor under
NPC against Board of Canvassers, Maigo, Lanao del Norte;” that on the
basis of the said complaint, subscribed before respondent judge, said
respondent issued the aforesaid order dated 14 May 1992, ordering the Board of
Canvassers to suspend the canvassing of the election returns of Precinct No.
10-A until either the Commission on Elections, Manila, or the Regional Trial
Court in Iligan City could act on the complaint of Wilfredo Randa; that the
said order caused the delay in the canvassing of the election returns which was resumed only after the Provincial
Election Supervisor of Lanao del Norte sent a message to the COMELEC (Manila)
requesting that an order be issued ordering the Board of Canvassers, Maigo,
Lanao del Norte, to disregard the restraining order of respondent judge.

Complainant further avers that despite the fact that respondent
judge lacked jurisdiction over the matter, he nevertheless issued the assailed
order of 14 May 1992 on the alleged ground that the judges of the “RTC at
Iligan City are not available to issue a Preliminary Injunction, and, it is
admitted fact the COMELEC, Manila is very far and might not receive on time the
appeal of the petitioner.” Complain­ant asserts that respondent’s
justification in issuing the order constituted ignorance of the law,
considering that on 14 May 1992 there was as yet no appeal to speak of from the
decision of the Board of Canvassers because the election returns had not been
canvassed and that it is an express provision of law that an appeal can be had
only after the Board of Canvassers has rendered its ruling on the objections of
any party to the inclusion or exclusion of election returns.

In compliance with the Court’s resolution dated 2 February 1993,
respondent submitted his Comment dated 17 March 1993.

Respondent admitted having issued without jurisdiction the
questioned order of 14 May 1992. He
justified its issuance “as an immediate remedy and arrangement to prevent
bloodshed between the contending parties, the complainant’s followers, the LDP
and the oppositions (sic) followers, the NPC, which if said eminent (sic)
trouble will occur, would caused (sic) not only irreparable damages but may
ignite and give rise to the revival of the old centuries (sic) conflict between
Christians and Muslims in the province.” He pointed out that complainant’s
failure to question or move for a reconsideration of the assailed order implied
her acceptance thereof. He likewise
suggested that complainant filed the complaint for the purpose of harassing him
and to block his application for promotion to the Regional Trial Court.

On 23 November 1993, the Court referred this case to the Office
of the Court Administrator for evaluation, report and recommendation.

The report of the Court Administrator states as follows:

“We find for the complainant. As admitted by the respondent and after having been ruled upon by the
COMELEC in its En Banc Resolution dated May 19, 1992 (Rollo, p. 14), that the
assailed Order was issued without jurisdiction, the acts complained of should
be met with a corresponding sanction. Formal investigation of the charge against the respondent for issuing
the questioned order without juris­diction is no longer necessary in view of
the respondent’s admission. The
reason/defense interposed by the respondent is unavailing. As a judicial officer, he is to (sic) know
and keep abreast with the latest law and jurisprudence. His feeling of sympathy and fairness cannot
serve as a license for him to deliberately transgress or dispense with the
existing laws involving the controversy. To hold the respondent administratively
liable for ignorance of the law, there must be reliable evidence to show the
judicial acts complained of were ill-motivated and corrupt. The documents on file in the case do not
show that questioned order was ill-motivated or corrupt.

We, however, cannot overlook the fact that respondent acted with
grave abuse of discretion in issuing his Order dated May 14, 1992 ordering the
Board of Canvassers of Maigo, Lanao del Norte to suspend the canvassing of the
election returns knowing full (sic) well that he does not have juris­diction to
act on the petition filed by Wilfredo Randa.”

By and large, we agree with the conclusions of the Court
Administrator. We find respondent’s
actuation as unbecoming that of a worthy Judge, for a judge should be faithful
to the law and maintain professional competence (Rule 3.01, Canon 3, Code of
Judicial Conduct). While his reasons
for issuing the assailed order are perhaps commendable and demonstrative of his
concern for peace and order during the election period in the given community,
he lost sight of his bounden duty, as a Judge, to be the embodiment of compe­tence,
integrity, and independence (Rule 1.01, Canon 1, supra). A Judge should behave at all times as
to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary
(Rule 2.01, Canon 2, supra).

ACCORDINGLY, the Court RESOLVED to hold respondent judge administratively liable for
having knowingly issued an order without jurisdiction and with grave abuse of
discre­tion, and to impose on him a fine of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00),
with a STERN WARNING that a
repetition of the same or similar act or acts in the future will be dealt with
more severely.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Feliciano, Bidin, Regalado, Davide, Jr.,
Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Quiason, Puno, Vitug, and
Kapunan, JJ., concur.

Mendoza, J., no part.