LT. ROBERTO LASTIMOSO, COMPLAINANT, VS. MUNICIPAL JUDGE IGNACIO LAMBO OF MABINI, DAVAO DEL NORTE, RESPONDENT.

It was the appearance of bias arising from a remark imputed to
respondent Judge Ignacio Lambo that led to this
administrative complaint.  It was alleged
by complainant Roberto T. Lastimoso, then Commanding
officer of a Philippine Constabulary Company stationed at Tagum,
Davao del Norte, that respondent Judge vouched for
the character of an accused for illegal possession of firearms and expressed
surprise why such a case was being filed. 
It was further stated in such complaint: “He did not of course
reject the complaint, but we feel that he would not be able to prosecute the
case successfully with this outburst.  We
requested him to issue the Warrant of Arrest against David Pailog
as there is a prima facie case, but he denied this and said that
he will conduct another preliminary investigation before issuing the Warrant of
Arrest.”^[1]

When asked to comment, respondent Judge denied the allegation
that he blamed the Philippine Constabulary for filing the complaint or that he
“advised the complainant to desist from charging any violation of our
laws.”^[2]
By way of further explanation, he added: “The truth of the matter is that
on July 5, 1972, Sgt. German
Riogelon of the PC filed a criminal complaint signed
by him and docketed as Criminal Case No. 811 of this Court for Illegal
Possession of Firearms and Ammunitions against one David Pailog.  When I went over the records, one of the
sworn statements supporting the complaint was executed last June 26, 1972 and
the other supporting affidavit, on the date the complaint was filed.  Both were brief sworn statements.  Upon seeing that the incident of the confiscation
of the firearm and ammunitions was on June
11, 1972, I immediately asked the complainant Sergeant why the
filing of the case was delayed.  He said
that the witnesses were on mission, so they could not file the case
sooner.  I asked that question precisely
because I expected the filing of the complaint immediately after June 26, 1972, when the first
affidavit was executed.  Right then and
there, I accepted and docketed the case, without much ado.”^[3]

Respondent Judge likewise denied the alleged delay in the
issuance of the warrant of arrest.  Thus:
“After docketing the case and observing that the complainant Sgt. Riogelon expected that I issue immediately the warrant of
arrest although he did not say so, I explained to him the necessity of
conducting a preliminary examination to determine the probable cause before I
issue the warrant of arrest.  I told him
it is a constitutional requirement and that the same was necessary in this case
because the Court cannot just adopt the brief questions and answers given in
the sworn statements of the witnesses supporting the complaint as they were not
searching enough and were prepared by the PC in Tagum,
Davao del Norte. 
He told the undersigned that there was already a prima facie
case against the accused and for that matter the warrant of arrest can issue
immediately.  I insisted and told him
that unless I have personally examined the complainant and his witnesses myself
and is satisfied that there is probable cause, I cannot issue the
warrant.”^[4]

The matter was referred to Judge Felix L. Moya
for investigation.  Complainant, Lt. Lastimoso, was required to submit a verified complaint, but
instead of doing so, there was a communication from Lt. Col. Pedro R. Martinez,
the Officer-In-Charge of the Davao del Norte
Constabulary Command at Tagum, to the effect that
complainant was “not interested in filing an administrative case against
respondent Judge Ignacio Lambo.”^[5]
It was his recommendation, there­fore, that the case be dismissed.  With such a recommendation, the Office of the
Judicial Consultant of this Court was in agreement.

This Court is likewise of the view that no further action need be
taken on the matter and that the complaint be dismissed.  The probabilities were that the Sergeant who
sought the issuance of a warrant of arrest, unable to understand the procedure
to be followed and fearful that the superior officer might consider it a mark
of inefficiency, exaggerated matters.  At
any rate, this Court gave complainant every opportunity to prove his charge,
but he failed to do so.  Respondent Judge
is thus entitled to be cleared. 
Nonetheless, it is not inappropriate as a reminder to every occupant of
the bench that random remarks could be misinterpreted.  Every effort should, therefore, be made so
that the least doubt as to one’s impartiality should not arise.  So it has been from Gutierrez v. Santos,^[6] a
1962 decision, to Ignacio v. Villaluz,^[7]
promulgated earlier this month.

WHEREFORE, this administrative complaint is
dismissed.  Let a copy of this resolution be entered on the record of respondent Judge
Ignacio C. Lambo.

Antonio, (Actg. Chairman), Aquino, Santos,
and Abad
Santos, JJ.,
concur.

Barredo and
Concepcion, Jr., JJ., on official leave.

^[1] Complaint, 1.

^[2] Comment of Respondent Judge, 1.

^[3] Ibid, 2.

^[4] Ibid, 3.

^[5] Recommendation, 1.

^[6] 112 Phil. 184.

^[7]
L-37527-52, May 5, 1979.