FEDERICO ADVINCULA, COMPLAINANT, VS. HONORABLE MARIANO MALICUDIO, RESPONDENT.

Advincula versus Malicudio

The Case

This is an administrative case brought by Federico Advincula, an employee of the Office of the Municipal Mayor of Dumarao, Capiz, against Municipal Judge Mariano Malicudio of the same municipality, charging him with neglect of duty and partiality in connection with a criminal case for qualified theft pending in his court. The complainant alleged that the case against one Pedro Catalan was never docketed and never given a case number, and that when reminded of the omission the respondent judge claimed he had referred the matter to the Department of Agrarian Reform in Iloilo City, a referral that, upon verification, was never made. The case matters because it fixes a simple, memorable rule: a municipal judge who adopts a personal policy of not docketing and not numbering cases until a preliminary examination is completed violates the Rules of Court and is administratively liable, and the complainant's later desistance does not erase that liability.

Procedural History

The case began as a sworn complaint filed with the Supreme Court on March 29, 1977. The respondent submitted his comment on May 26, 1977, explaining that his failure to docket and number the case was due to his policy not to docket in the permanent docket and not to number cases unless a preliminary examination is completed. By resolution of the First Division, the case was referred to Executive Judge Agapito Cruz of the Court of First Instance of Capiz at Mambusao for investigation, report, and recommendation. The hearing was set, reset upon the respondent's motion, and reset several more times upon the motions of the parties. At the hearing on February 26, 1979, the complainant filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that his evidence was insufficient to prove his allegations, and the investigating judge recommended dismissal. The case was thus an original administrative action before the Supreme Court, not an appeal from any lower court.

Facts

A criminal case for qualified theft against Pedro Catalan was pending in the municipal court of Dumarao, Capiz, presided over by the respondent judge. That case was never entered in the docket book and was never assigned a case number.

When the complainant reminded the respondent of the omission, the respondent explained that he had referred the case to the Department of Agrarian Reform in Iloilo City. Upon verification, however, no such referral had been made by the respondent.

In his comment, the respondent admitted that his failure to docket and number the case was due to his declared policy not to docket in the permanent docket and not to number cases unless a preliminary examination of a case is completed. At the investigation, the complainant moved to dismiss his own complaint for insufficiency of evidence, and the investigating judge recommended dismissal.

Issues

• Whether or not the complainant's desistance or loss of interest warrants the dismissal of the administrative case.
• Whether or not the respondent judge is administratively liable for neglect of duty for failing to docket and assign a case number to the criminal case, under his declared policy of not docketing and numbering a case unless a preliminary examination is completed.

Applicable Provisions

Section 18, Rule 136 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 18. Record of cases. Each judge or clerk of court shall keep a record of all cases filed in his court, showing the date of filing, the names of the parties, the nature of the case, and the proceedings had therein.

This is the rule the respondent violated by refusing to enter the criminal case in his docket book and by refusing to assign it a case number until a preliminary examination was completed.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the complainant's desistance or loss of interest does not warrant the dismissal of the case if the charge can be sufficiently established. The Court rested this on a long line of administrative cases, citing Beduya versus Alpuerto, Espayos versus Lee, and De la Cruz versus Mudlong. The withdrawal of a complaint, in other words, does not bind the Court where the record itself proves the offense.

On the second issue, the Court held that the respondent virtually admitted that he did not enter the criminal case in his docket book and did not assign it a case number, thereby revealing that he had not performed his duties properly as required by Section 18, Rule 136 of the Rules of Court. His declared policy of not docketing and numbering a case unless a preliminary examination is completed runs contrary to the provisions of that rule, for which he must be administratively responsible.

Doctrine

First, a judge must keep a record of all cases filed in his court, showing the date of filing, the names of the parties, the nature of the case, and the proceedings had therein, as Section 18, Rule 136 of the Rules of Court commands. A personal policy of not docketing and not numbering cases until a preliminary examination is completed is contrary to that rule and makes the judge administratively liable for neglect of duty.

Second, the desistance of a complainant or his loss of interest does not warrant the dismissal of an administrative case if the charge can be sufficiently established from the record. The Court's disciplinary power is not defeated by the private complainant's change of heart.

Disposition

The respondent judge was reprimanded and admonished that a repetition of the same or similar neglect would be dealt with more severely, and a copy of the decision was ordered attached to his personal records.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: a judge's private policy of not docketing and not numbering cases until preliminary examination is completed violates Section 18, Rule 136 of the Rules of Court and constitutes neglect of duty. Examiners use this case to test the duty to docket and number cases, and to test the rule that a complainant's desistance does not automatically dismiss an administrative charge.