VICTOR B. REYES, COMPLAINANT, VS. HON. ERNESTO A. FADERAN, RESPONDENT.

These administrative
complaints were filed against Judge Ernesto Faderan,
formerly the Presiding Judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Paoay Currimao, Ilocos Norte until he was transferred to his
present station, the MCTC of Piddig-Carasi-Solsona, Ilocos Norte in January 1987.

IN AM. NO. R-581-MTJ

Atty. Victor Reyes, Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Ilocos Norte in a verified complaint dated February 20, 1986, charged the
respondent with inefficiency and violation of Republic Act No. 3019.

The complainant averred that the respondent failed to attend
scheduled hearings of criminal cases without prior notice to the parties.  He also averred that the respondent was not
on leave of absence on the scheduled dates
of the hearing.

IN AM. NO. R-674-MTJ

Romeo C. Acdal, a detention prisoner
since March 1986, in a letter-complaint dated June 9, 1986, charged the respondent with
incompetence.  The complainant alleged
that Criminal Case No. 1981-P was filed against him in the respondent’s court
but from March to June, 1986, the
respondent had not conducted a preliminary investigation as mandated by Sec. 3
(d) and Sec. 4, first paragraph of Rule 112 of the new Rules on Criminal
Procedure which is in violation of his constitutional rights under the
provisional Constitution and Sec. 3 (e), (f) of Republic Act 3019.

IN AM. NO. R-675-MTJ

Eishenhower (sic) Adaza,
barrio captain of Paoay, Ilocos
Norte, in a letter-complaint dated June 9, 1986, charged the respondent with ignorance of
the law and incompetence.

The complainant alleged
that on November 1, 1984, he confiscated a revolver from one Joventino
Tolentino which was made a basis of a criminal
complaint filed with the respondent’s court and docketed as Criminal Case No.
1884.  The respondent has not conducted
the necessary preliminary investigation as mandated by Sec. 3 (d) and Sec. 4,
Rule 112 of the Rules of Court.

IN AM. NO. R-292-MTJ

Lourdes Clemente Santos, in a verified complaint dated April 1,
1985, charged the
respondent with gross ignorance of the law, oppression, neglect of duty, and
serious misconduct.

The charges against the
respondent arose in connection with the criminal case for theft filed against
the complainant by Pacifico Clemente.  The complainant averred that the respondent,
without conducting a preliminary investigation whereby the respondent should
have asked Pacifico and his witnesses clarificatory questions and without even determining whether
there is sufficient evidence that the crime of theft has been committed and
that the complainant is probably guilty thereof, hastily issued a warrant of
arrest against the complainant.

The complainant also averred that the respondent knowingly
omitted the express requirement to furnish the complainant with copies of the
criminal complaint and the supporting affidavits and did not bother to direct
her to submit her counter-affidavit as mandated by the Judiciary Reorganization
Act (Batas Pambansa Blg. 129).

IN AM. NO. MTJ-86-49

Leonora M. Pascua, in a verified
letter-complaint dated December 2, 1986,
charged the respondent with dereliction of duty for failure to resolve within
the 90-day period Civil Case No.
242-P for damages which, according to the complainant, had been submitted for decision some three years ago.  The complainant averred that she sought the
assistance of the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Batac, Ilocos Norte, who allegedly issued an order
directing the respondent to decide the case in question.

IN AM. NO.
MTJ-88-206

Vicente Gregorio, in a sworn letter-complaint dated July 18, 1988, charged the respondent with grave abuse of authority and ignorance of law.

The complainant alleged that in the Order dated June 27, 1988,
the respondent Judge stated that at the mediation and conciliation conference,
his court mediated between the parties (referring to the herein complainant and
one Amador Madamba). 
This was denied by the complainant who claimed that he was not given any
opportunity to be heard thereat.  In the
same order, the respondent Judge directed herein complainant to desist from
molesting the priority rights of Amador Madamba over
the residential land in question, which, according to the complainant happens
to be part of the property belonging to him and which has been in his
possession since 1974.

The complainant asserted that the respondent Judge has no
jurisdiction to issue the assailed order and argued that pursuant to PD No.
1508, the Barangay Lupon
should be the one to conduct the mediation and conciliation proceedings before
any action could be formally filed in court. 
In the instant case, the respondent Judge allegedly undertook to conduct
the mediation and conciliation proceedings and decided the controversy in his
capacity as Presiding Judge of the MCTC where there was no case actually filed
in his sala in connection with the subject matter in
question.

In the resolutions dated June 17, 1986 and July 29, 1986, the
Court, acting on the complaints in AM No. R-581-MTJ, AM No. R-674-MTJ, and AM No. 675-MTJ, ordered the respondent
to comment on the aforementioned complaints.

In a resolution dated October
8, 1987, the Court suspended the respondent from service for his
failure to file his comment as required in the resolution of June 17, 1986 and July 29, 1986 and required him to
comply with aforesaid resolutions by submitting his comment.

In the other three cases, the respondent likewise failed to
submit his comments as required.  All the
while respondent had been conducting trials, deciding cases and submitting the
corresponding monthly reports in defiance of the resolution suspending him from
the service, his latest monthly report being for the month of October 1989.

As a result of all
these, the Court issued a resolution dated February 8, 1990, ordering the
respondent to cease discharging his functions, to show cause within a
non-extendible period why he should not be
removed from the service for his willful and continued defiance of the
resolution of October 8, 1987 and required him to file his comment on the
aforesaid cases within a non-extendible period.

The investigation report prepared by the Deputy Court
Administrator after interviewing the respondent in Paoay,
Ilocos Norte and the respondent’s letter dated March
1, 1990 contain the respondent’s side on the issues.

The reason given by the respondent for his failure to file his
comments in the different administrative cases is that from the time his wife
left him in 1985, he felt so depressed and emotionally disturbed that he was
not in the proper disposition to answer the charges against him.  He even took a leave for a period of two
months from December 1986 to January 1987 for him to maintain his mental sanity
and composure.  Also, with his
reappointment and transfer as Judge to the MCTC of Piddig-Solsona-Carasi,
the respondent believed that the administrative cases filed against him during
his term as MCTC Judge of Paoay-Currimao were
rendered moot and academic.

The reasons given by the respondent do not justify the delay in
answering the complaints against him. 
His wife left him in 1985 and he was asked to file his comments in the
succeeding years from 1986 to 1988.  He
had ample time to recover from the depression caused by his wife’s sudden
departure.  Moreover, depression is never
a reason for a public officer’s non-compliance with simple duties.  If he cannot do his work, he should go on
leave or resign.  Even assuming arguendo that the respondent
believed in good faith that the administrative cases against him were rendered
moot and academic because of his transfer, his receipt of the resolution dated October
8, 1987 in November
1987 would have notified him that these cases were not rendered moot and
academic.  He still did not see it fit to
comply with the Court’s orders.  This
shows a deliberate disregard and inexcusable flaunting of the Court’s orders.

On the matter of the
continuous discharge of his functions despite the order of suspension, the
respondent states that there were many pending warrants of arrest issued by him
before the order of suspension, so that if he will not hold office, many persons
arrested by virtue of said warrants will be unduly detained considering that
they cannot be temporarily released upon posting a bail without his
presence.  He alleged that there was no acting judge designated to preside over his sala in his absence as the Executive Judge was not
furnished a copy of the resolution ordering his suspension.  He stated that people from the municipality
where he was transferred to, go all the way to his residence in Paoay to ask him to act on their legal problems.  The respondent states that in his desire to
help and with good intentions in mind, he usually proceeds to his court sala to attend to litigants and people involved in legal
controversies.  Also, the
respondent wanted to make it appear that the situation was normal as to avoid
humiliation.  The respondent felt so
confused because of his marital problems coupled with the task of supporting
his eight children plus the order of suspension.

The respondent continued to discharge his functions as a Judge
for a period of two years from his receipt of the October 1987 resolution.  The contention about his alleged desire to
finish his pending work concerning the warrant of arrests and the failure to
notify the Executive Judge of his suspension is completely negated by the recklessly
imprudent attitude of the respondent towards
his work.  Under the circumstances given
in his explanations, the respondent continued with his duties as a Judge only
to avoid the humiliation of the suspension. 
This reason is not only flimsy
but is also difficult to believe in the light of the facts of this
case.  More credible is a deliberate
disregard of the Court’s order of suspension. 
The respondent deliberately disobeyed an order of suspension.

The respondent also contends that he never conducted hearings
during the period of his suspension.  He
explained that it was his Branch Clerk of Court who prepared the monthly
reports and though he was hesitant to sign such, he did so as the failure to
submit the monthly reports will result in the withholding of the said branch clerk’s salary.

This reasoning has absolutely no merit.  A Judge should know that he should never
falsify records for anybody’s sake – himself, his subordinates, parties, or
third persons.  But even assuming that
the respondent’s contention is correct,
the fact remains that he signed the monthly reports knowing that they were
false.  This reveals how lightly
respondent regarded the importance of official reports.  This shows gross negligence in the
performance of his duties.

Considering the above, there is no question that the respondent
acted with great disrespect and willful disobedience to the Court’s
orders.  (See Court Administrator v. Magtibay, 161 SCRA 137 [1988])

As to AM. No. R-581-MTJ, the respondent
contends that if it were true that he did not show up at the hearing of the
criminal cases scheduled, the parties and the lawyers would have also
complained about his absence.

A certification was made by the Clerk of Court of the MCTC of Paoay-Currimao that the respondent was indeed absent during
one of the scheduled hearings.  However,
there is no evidence on the record about the other hearings.

As to
AM. No. R-674-MTJ, the
respondent states that he recommended the filing of the corresponding
information against Acdal and forwarded the same to
the Office of the Provincial Fiscal. 
However, Provincial Fiscal Pobre without
taking consideration of the recommendation of the respondent, motu proprio dismissed the case
against Acdal.

The respondent admits that Acdal is a
detention prisoner.  A misunderstanding
between the respondent and the provincial fiscal should not prejudice the
rights of the complainant as he is being detained without due process of law
being accorded to him.  A Judge should be
the first person to respect and promote an accused’s
constitutional rights.

As to AM. No. R-675-MTJ, the respondent
contends that the person from whom the gun was confiscated was not a Joventino Tolentino but one Joventino Francisco according to the complaint filed by the
police.  The respondent issued a warrant
of arrest for Francisco but this was returned unserved
as the accused had fled to Manila to an unknown address.  The
respondent issued an alias warrant of arrest on several occasions and likewise,
it was returned unserved.  Believing in utmost good faith that the Court
had not acquired jurisdiction over the case, the respondent archived the said
case.

There is nothing in our records to support the allegations of the
complainant.  However, considering our
findings in the other cases against the respondent, we see no need for further
investigation of this particular complaint.

Furthermore, the respondent alleges that the above three
complaints were all instigated by Provincial Fiscal Pobre
in his desire to remove him from office.

This allegation is not substantiated in the records.

As to AM No. R-292-MTJ, the respondent
contends that he conducted personal examination of the complainant and his
witnesses based on the affidavits submitted by them.  However, the said personal examination was not reduced into
writing considering that their affidavits had been adopted as the answers of
the complainant and his witnesses.  The
respondent states that after conducting such personal examination, he was of
the opinion that there exists a probable cause and correspondingly issued a
warrant of arrest.  The respondent also
claims to have issued an order requiring the submission of counter-affidavits.

The crime was committed five years ago and the witnesses
presented by the complainant were 71 years old and 60 years old at the time of
the filing of the complaint which means that they were about 66 and 55 years
old respectively when the offense was committed.  It is true that, in the final analysis,
whether or not probable cause exists depends upon the judgment and discretion
of the Judge issuing the warrant of arrest (Marinas v. Siochi,
104 SCRA 423 [1981]) but in this case
the respondent should follow the proper procedures before issuing a warrant of
arrest.  Moreover, he should have
considered the facts and circumstances of the case in the conduct of the
personal examination.

In AM. No. MTJ-86-49, the respondent claims that
were it not for his leave and his transfer to another sala,
he would have immediately acted on the said case.  The respondent admits that the case was
already submitted for decision before he took his leave but there was no
mention as to exactly when it was submitted for decision.

The records are
incomplete to support the complainant’s allegation that the said case was
submitted for decision some three years ago from the filing of her complaint in
1986 but the Judge practically admits that he failed to act on the case on time.  We see no need for purposes of this
resolution to order further investigations on this matter.

In AM. No. MTJ-88-206, the respondent avers that he
was not acting in his official capacity as a Judge but as a friend trying to
help the parties settle their differences. 
It was due to a mental lapse on his part that he issued the questioned
order instead of a document embodying the parties
intention and agreement.  He had no
intention of usurping the function of a barangay
court but it is common practice in a community that when they want to settle their differences, they go to a judge.

An order issued by a judge is accorded great weight and respect
by the people in a community.  Therefore,
such orders should be issued with great care and discretion.  The alleged mental lapse of the respondent is
rejected by this Court which can find no excuse for the
issuance of an order as a Judge when there was actually no case filed in his sala.

The respondent is found to have acted with great disrespect and
willful disobedience to this Court’s orders. 
The facts show that he is negligent in the use of his authority as a
Judge.

There is no need to go into great detail as to the many legal
bases why the respondent should be dismissed with prejudice.  The facts especially the admissions of the
respondent when laid against the Rules show guilt beyond reasonable doubt.  It is sufficient to stress that Judge Ernesto
A. Faderan has violated the following provisions of
the Code of Judicial Conduct:

“Rule 1.01. – A judge should be the
embodiment of competence, integrity, and independence.”

xxx                            xxx                   xxx

“Rule 2.01. – A judge should so behave at
all times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of
the judiciary.”

xxx                            xxx                   xxx

“Rule 2.03. – A judge shall not allow
family, social, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or
judgment.  The prestige of judicial
office shall not be used or lent to advance the private interests of others,
nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence
the judge.”

xxx                            xxx                   xxx

“Rule 3.01. – A judge shall be faithful to
the law and maintain professional competence.”

“Rule 3.02. – In every case, a judge shall
endeavor diligently to ascertain the facts and the applicable law unswayed by partisan interests, public opinion or fear of
criticism.”

xxx                            xxx                   xxx

“Rule
3.05. – A judge shall
dispose of the court’s business promptly and decide cases within the
required periods.”

xxx                            xxx                   xxx

“Rule 3.08. – A judge should diligently
discharge administrative responsibilities, maintain professional competence in
court management, and facilitate the performance of the administrative
functions of other judges and court personnel.”

“Rule 3.09. – A judge should organize and
supervise the court personnel to ensure the prompt and efficient dispatch of
business, and require at all times the observance of high standards of public
service and fidelity.”

The acts of the respondent show that he is
totally unfit and undeserving to be a member of the Judiciary.

WHEREFORE, respondent Ernesto Faderan
is DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of all salaries, benefits and
leave credits to which he may be entitled and with prejudice to re-employment in the Government
service, including government-owned or controlled corporations.  The Court stresses that this action is
without prejudice to any criminal or civil liability which may have arisen from
the acts complained of in these cases.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J., Narvasa,
Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco,
Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento,
Cortes, Medialdea, and
Regalado, JJ., concur.

Griño-Aquino, J., on leave.