DR. DOROTEO F. BALA, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE MANUEL ROMILLO, JR., RESPONDENT.

The complainant Dr. Doroteo F. Bala of Olongapo
City instituted this administrative
complaint against respondent Judge Manuel Romillo,
Jr. then presiding Branch II of the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte at Laoag City
in connection with an incident in Civil Case No. 3336-11 pending in said court
wherein he was a party litigant.  The
incident occurred on September 25, 1973 after complainant had traveled all the
way from Olongapo City to attend a hearing scheduled
for said date before respondent judge only to find the courtroom closed, and
claimed that he was the object of offensive and insulting language from respondent
judge in the latter’s chambers who ordered him and his daughter out of the
premises.

Respondent filed a
verified answer to the complaint, stating that “he did not meet or
see” complainant on the date of the incident “neither in the
courtroom, my chambers nor elsewhere” and that he had “never met this
person (complainant); that it “must either be one of failure of memory of Mr. Bala
by reason of senility or an outright malicious false accusation”; that
when the case was called for hearing at 8:30 a.m. on the date in question, only
counsel for plaintiff-movants appeared and since the
record did not show that respondents (including Dr. Bala)
were duly notified, the case was rescheduled for the following month, and respondent
repaired to his hotel room to work on his pending decisions; and that he
learned afterwards from his then branch clerk of court, Atty. Ernesto Madamba, that complainant had arrived that same morning at
about 10:00 a.m. after adjournment of the day’s session and that an altercation
had ensued between Atty. Madamba and complainant but
that Atty. Madamba had assured respondent that he
(Atty. Madamba) had in no way by word or by deed
insulted complainant as averred in the complaint.

Since the parties’
verified assertions were diametrically in conflict, the case was referred for
determination of the facts to Justice Buenaventura S. de la Fuente
who after conducting the investigation, rendered the following report on the
evidence adduced before him:

“At the date set for the initial hearing of this matter,
accompanied by his daughter, complainant appeared without counsel.  Complainant was an old man with a defective
eyesight and had to be guided by his daughter as he moved about.  Besides, he resided at a distant place, Olongapo City.  Accordingly, the undersigned deemed it best
for all concerned to proceed with the hearing after the complainant gave an
affirmative reply to the question whether he was willing to go on with the
hearing without a legal counsel and to present evidence in support of the
allegations in his complaint.

“In view of this, the complainant and his witness were allowed
by the undersigned to testify in narrative form, subject to cross-examination
by counsel for the respondent judge.  The
pertinent portions of the transcript read as follows:

‘Investigator:

‘Do you have a lawyer?

‘Doroteo Bala:

‘None,
sir.

‘Investigator:

‘Are you willing to go
ahead with this investigation even without a counsel?

‘Doroteo Bala:

‘If it can be done that way I am willing.

‘Investigator:

‘You should have a lawyer to assist you in this case.

‘Doroteo Bala:

‘The question is how.  I have
almost nothing.  I can’t hire a lawyer.

‘Investigator:

‘At any rate, we will allow you to testify in a narrative form subject
to cross-examination by the counsel for the respondent.’ (t.s.n.,
pages 2-3.)

“In their testimonies, the complainant and his witness (his
daughter Remedios Bala-Florita)
narrated the details of the incident, which appear to be substantially as
alleged in the complaint.  Under
cross-examination, however, the said complainant and his witness admitted or
affirmed certain facts which, in the opinion of the undersigned investigator,
would readily show their inability or failure to identify the person who
allegedly shouted at complainant, using offensive language, at the CFI of llocos Norte on September
25, 1973.

“Regarding Dr. Bala, the 84-year old
complainant, the following were elicited during his cross-examination:

“1.     That he needed a
guide when he went to Laoag on September 25, 1973,
because his eyesight ‘was poor’ or impaired by two eye operations, the first in
1969 and the second in 1972, which ‘clouded’ his vision (t.s.n.,
page 11);

“2.     That in reply to
the question whether he would be able ‘to point to Judge Romillo,
if you still remember him,’ complainant admitted that he ‘might make a mistake
because I am very sure that my eyesight at present, the way I see every person
or object is a little bit clearer than a shadow’ (t.s.n.,
page 12); and

“3.     That he ‘did not
look’ at the face of the judge when he allegedly got mad, making it ‘very hard
[for him] to identify’ said person (t.s.n., pages 14
and 15).

“Likewise, his daughter Remedios Bala Florita, under
cross-examination, gave some notable answers, among others:  1. 
asked if she knew the respondent judge, said witness volunteered to
‘point to him,’ pointing to a gentleman seated beside respon­dent’s counsel
(Atty. Ranada) as ‘Judge Romillo‘
(t.s.n., pages 21 and 22); 2.  she admitted that
she was not familiar with the face of the said gentleman, having met him ‘only
once’ (t.s.n., page 22); 3.  she was ‘sure’ about
her identification, as she in fact saw him at the corridor before the start of
the hearing (t.s.n. , pages 22 and 23); and 4.  when they inquired
about the hearing, the gentleman was called by the lady clerk, and she
‘assumed’ that he was ‘Judge Romillo‘, alt ho he did
not so identify himself.  To quote the
pertinent portions of her testimony:

‘Q:   Did you know where Judge
Romillo is now?

‘A:   I can point to him, sir.

‘Q:   Will you please do that Dra. Florita?

‘A.   (Witness pointing to a gentleman seated beside counsel.)

‘Q:   You mean to say you are
familiar with the face of the gentleman
beside me now?

‘A:   No, I met him only once.

‘Q:   You met him only once
but you remember him to be the one whom you describe as Judge Romillo in your testimony?

‘A;   Yes,
sir.

‘Q:   And you are very sure of
that?

‘A:   I am sure.  That is why when I saw him this morning I
said he is Judge Romillo.

‘Q:   When did you see him for
the first time this morning?

‘A:   In the
corridor outside, near the security guard.  That was about one hour ago.

‘Q:   And upon seeing him you
immediately recognize him?

‘A:   Yes,
sir.

‘Q:   During the first time
that you saw him on September 25, 1973,
did somebody in the court room pointed to him as Judge Romillo?  I mean, near the ante-chamber did somebody
point to him and said he is Judge Romillo? I am
referring to the gentleman beside me.

‘A:   He was called by the
lady clerk and whom do you expect to go to about our hearing if not the judge
himself.

‘Q:   So that, then he did not identify himself as Judge Romillo
but you assumed that he was Judge Romillo?

‘Yes, sir.

‘ATTY. RANADA:

‘That will be all with the witness.’ (t.s.n.,
pages 21 to 24.)

“The gentleman referred to, when asked to identify himself,
gave the following answer:

‘I am Assistant Fiscal Ernesto Madamba.  I came here
to be a witness for Judge Romillo.  I was requested to appear.  In fact, really I am the one with whom the
complainant had some sort of altercation and I really recognize the lady.  I was then the Branch Clerk of Court of
Branch II, Court of First Instance of Laoag, where
Civil Case 3336-2 was then pending Your Honor.’ (t.s.n., page 25.)

“Later on, Fiscal Madamba testified
for the respondent, declaring that it was he, not the res­pondent judge, who
had a verbal exchange with the complainant on September 25, 1973, as stated in his affidavit (which was
marked Exhibit 1 for the respondent).

“To give the complainant another opportunity to retain the
services of a legal counsel and to present such other evidence as he may desire
in support of his complaint, the undersigned investigator reset the matter for
another hearing on March 26, 1976.  On that date, no one appeared for the
complainant who, by letter dated March 17 (received March 26, at 2:00 o’clock
p.m.), informed the investigator that he ‘cannot come with a legal counsel’ and
that they have already ‘pictured vividly … the whole incident’ in their
declarations of February 27.”

The Court after a review
of the record concurs with the finding of the Investigating Justice that this
indeed was a case of mistaken identity and approves his recommendation for
exoneration of respondent Judge.

ACCORDINGLY, the respondent Judge is exonerated from the
charges and the case is hereby dismissed.

Makasiar, (Acting Chairman), Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., and Martin JJ., concur.