CANDELARIA VILLAMOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. CITY JUDGE SILVINO LU.  BARRO OF GINGOOG CITY, RESPONDENT.

Candelaria Villamor, as the complainant in Criminal Case No.
131-78 of the city court of Gingoog City, People vs. Martiniano Bantug, a case
of lesiones menos graves, testified in the afternoon of June 20, 1978 after Bantug was arraigned.

At the continuation of the hearing scheduled at eight-thirty in
the morning of August 24, 1978,
City Judge Silvino Lu. Barro, upon motion of the trial fiscal, ordered the
arrest of Candelaria because she did not appear although she had been notified
of that hearing (she signed the subpoena).

In the afternoon of the same day, August 24, Candelaria appeared
before Judge Barro and explained that she did not go to the court in the
morning because she thought that the hearing was in the afternoon as was done
on prior occasions.  Judge Barro advised
Candelaria to ask the city fiscal’s office to file a motion to lift the order
of arrest against her.  She did not
understand that advice.

Instead of contacting the trial fiscal, she went to the public
market to buy rice.  Shortly after she
returned to her house, a patrolman arrested her.  According to Candelaria, she stayed in jail
from five o’clock in the afternoon
and was released at eleven o’clock in
the morning of the following day after the fiscal moved for the lifting of the
order of arrest.

For having been confined in jail for about eighteen hours,
Candelaria charged Judge Barro with grave abuse of authority.  She said that her presence at the August 24
hearing was no longer necessary because she had already given her testimony.

The Investigator opined that no grave abuse of authority was
committed by Judge Barro because the arrest was made at the instance of the
trial fiscal and complainant Candelaria did not follow the judge’s advice to
ask the fiscal to move for the lifting of the order of arrest.

Deputy Court
Administrator Medialdea disagreed.  He
said that Judge Barro, instead of ordering her arrest, could have just asked
Candelaria to show cause why she should not be held in
contempt of court and he could have lifted the order of arrest because she had
already made a satisfactory explanation for her nonappearance at the August 24
hearing.  The Deputy Court Administrator
recommended that Judge Barro be required to pay a fine equivalent to his salary
for ten days.

Disciplinary action may
be taken against a city judge if he has not performed his duties properly.  We find that Judge Barro was negligent in not
seasonably lifting the order of arrest against Candelaria Villamor, an omission
which caused her needless detention in jail.

Judge Barro retired on February
16, 1982 upon reaching the age of seventy years.  In a prior administrative case, he was found
guilty of gross error due to carelessness and negligence.  He was severely reprimanded and was warned
that the commission of another irregula­rity would be severely dealt with
(Moral vs. Barro, Adm. Matter No. 179-CTJ, September 28, 1973).

In another case, Judge Barro failed to act immediately on a
motion filed by the fiscal to dismiss a criminal case.  Due to the delay, the accused languished in
jail for more than one month.  This Court
found Judge Barro to have been remiss in the performance of his duties.  He was required to pay a fine equivalent to his
salary for one month (Rodriguez vs. Barro, Adm. Matter No. 1587-CTJ, August 23,
1978, 84 SCRA 663).

Considering the facts of the instant case and Judge Barro’s
previous record, we hold that he should be required to pay a fine equivalent to
his salary for three months.  In
not expeditiously lifting the order of arrest against Candelaria Villamor, he
committed a dereliction of duty which resulted in her being unjustly deprived
of liberty for eighteen hours.

WHEREFORE, Judge Barro is ordered to pay a fine
equivalent to his salary for three months which should be deducted from his retirement
pay.

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar, (Chairman), Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos,
De Castro, and Escolin, JJ., concur.