VIRGILIO CHAN, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE EMERITO M. AGCAOILI, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 9, SECOND JUDICIAL REGION, APARRI, CAGAYAN, RESPONDENT.

On 27 July 1993, Virgilio Chan filed a sworn complaint against
Judge Emerito M. Agcaoili of Branch 9, Regional Trial Court of Cagayan, with
the Office of the Court Administrator, for gross ignorance of the law, abuse of
authority and gross incompetence.

Deputy Court Administrator Juanito A. Bernad required the
respondent to submit a comment thereto. The latter filed his comment on 22 September 1993, admitting the acts
complained of, but clarifying that they were done with legitimate reasons and
therefore do not constitute any wrongdoing on his part.

Upon the recommendation of the Deputy Court Administra­tor, the
Court resolved on 6 December 1993 to refer the case to Court of Appeals Justice
Alicia M. Austria-Martinez for investigation, report and recommendation.

The Investigating Justice proceeded to conduct hearings on this
case on 28 January and 4 February 1994, asking clarificatory questions of the
parties represented by counsel. Noting
that most of the material facts of the case were not disputed by the parties,
the Investigating Judge then required them to submit their memoranda. The respondent Judge complied but the
complainant failed to do so despite having been given ample opportunity
therefor. The case was then submitted
for evaluation and recommend­ation and in due time, the Investigating Justice
submitted to the Court a Report with recommendation dated 11 April 1994.

The Investigating Justice found that the complainant had
commenced a criminal case for estafa against one Meynardo Gonzaga and that the
corresponding information had been filed with the respondent’s court. The Judge allowed the accused to post bail
in the amount of P20,000.00. In an
order dated 10 August 1992, for failure of the accused to appear previously for
arraignment and pre-trial, the respondent Judge declared the bail bond
forfeited and in a further order dated 27 August 1992, ordered the criminal
case archived. On both occasions, the
respondent Judge failed to order the arrest of the accused for having jumped
bail. Nine months later or on 4 May
1993, the respondent Judge finally issued a warrant for the arrest of the
accused, fixing bail anew in the reduced amount of P8,000.00, after
complainant’s counsel had talked with the Branch Clerk of Court of the
respondent Judge about the matter.^[1] Up to
the present, the accused has remained at large.

The respondent Judge pleaded by way of defense in his memorandum
that he failed to issue the warrant of arrest promptly because he was
preoccupied at the time with three (3) election cases, in addition to his
regular load of criminal and civil cases. He had also reduced the bail of the accused out of human compassion, to
alleviate the suffering of the latter arising from the forfeiture of his first
bail bond.

Evaluating the facts and respondent’s defenses, the Investigating
Justice concluded that although the presence of an additional case load did not
justify the respondent’s omission, still his failure to promptly order the
arrest of the accused was basically “an honest oversight;” that the
respondent’s decision to reduce the amount of bail for the accused was
“not contrary to law” and it was the same amount initially
recommended by the Provincial Prosecutor as bail for the accused. In both instances, the Investigating Justice
observed, no evidence was offered by the complainant to show that the
respondent’s conduct was tainted with bad faith or corrupt motive. Thus, she held that respondent Judge’s
conduct should be characterized as simple negligence.

The Investigating Justice also held, however, that the
respondent’s failure to order the arrest of the accused and his extending
compassion to the latter by reducing the amount of new bail, gave probable
cause for the complainant to believe that the respondent Judge was partial to
the accused. Respondent, in other
words, failed to promote public confidence in the integrity and independence of
the Judiciary, a duty imposed on him by Canon 2, Rule 2.01 of the Code of
Judicial Conduct.

Deliberating upon the Report dated 11 April 1994, after reviewing
the attached record of the clarificatory hearings conducted by the
Investigating Justice, the Court considers that the findings of the latter are
supported by substantial evidence and adopts such findings as its own, and
accepts the recommendation of the Investigating Justice.

It is important that a judge avoid delay in carrying out such
legal action as is warranted by the circumstances of a case pending before his
court, if only to dispel any suspicion that something sinister or corrupt is
going on.^[2]
Fortunately, respondent’s act of issuing a warrant of arrest, apparently after
being reminded by his Branch Clerk of Court to do so, negated wilful wrongdoing
on his part and showed at least the respondent’s predisposition to apply the
law to the best of his ability.

As a matter of public policy, in the absence of fraud, dishonesty
or corruption, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to
disciplinary action, even though such acts may be erroneous; but at the same
time, it is imperative that a judge be conversant with basic legal principles
like those involved in this case.^[3] The
“very delicate” function of administering justice demands that a
judge should conduct himself at all times in a manner which would reasonably
merit the respect and confidence of the people, for he is the visible
representation of the law.^[4] The
facts of the present case indicate that respondent failed to come up to this
standard of conduct and had given apparent cause for a litigant to doubt his
impartiality.

ACCORDINGLY, respondent Judge Emerito M. Agcaoili is
hereby FOUND GUILTY of simple negligence in the performance of his duties
resulting in non-compliance with Canon 2, Rule 2.01 of the Code of Judicial
Conduct; he is hereby REPRIMANDED and WARNED that a repetition of similar acts
or omissions in the furture will be dealt with more severely by the Court.

Bidin, Romero, Melo, and
Vitug, JJ., concur.

^[1]
TSN, 2 January 1994, pp. 3-4; TSN, 4
February 1994, p. 2.

^[2]
See Ropeta v. Dictado, A.M. No.
RTJ-89-389, 28 June 1993, p. 30.

^[3]
See Lim v. Domagas, A.M. No.
RTJ-92-899, 15 October 1993, p. 7.

^[4]
See Ubarra v. Mapalad, 220 SCRA
224, 237 (1993).