CHIEF INSPECTOR ALFONSO H. MARDOQUIO, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE EVELIO ILANGA, RESPONDENT.

On 17 August 1993, PNP Chief Inspector Alfonso H. Mardoquio filed
with this Court an administrative complaint against Judge Evelio Ilanga of the
Municipal Trial Court, Dumangas, Iloilo, ascribing to the latter ignorance of
the law by issuing an illegal and unlawful order.

The complainant averred that, on 25 June 1993, some members of
the Philippine National Police (“PNP”) stationed in Calinog, Iloilo,
went to the PNP Dumangas Station to ask for the latter’s assistance in
following up a missing motorcycle suspected to be in the custody of one Nerio
Arboleda. The police officers from both
stations proceeded to the Dumangas Polytechnic College where Arboleda was
teaching. The group found the missing
motor vehicle in Arboleda’s possession. Since the engine number of the motorcycle was evidently tampered with,
the vehicle was brought to the PNP Dumangas Station for examination. Arboleda did not object to have the motor
vehicle examined. On the evening of the
same day, respondent Judge, allegedly under the influence of liquor, went to
the PNP Dumangas Station and interceded for the release of the motor
vehicle. He also issued a handwritten
order for its release.

For his part, respondent Judge, when required to comment, denied
the accusation of the complainant and contended that on the evening of 25 June
1993, Nerio Arboleda and the latter’s father-in-law, Daniel Delariarte, Jr.,
came to see him at home and pleaded for help in securing the release of the
impounded vehicle which he badly needed, during emergencies, for his sickly
wife. He was informed by Arboleda that
the motorcycle was donated by his aunt, Editha Celajes De Asis, in 1988, and
that it could not possibly be the missing motor vehicle the police were looking
for. Respondent Judge accompanied
Arboleda and Delariarte, Jr., to the police station. Since complainant Chief Inspector Mardoquio was not there at the
time, respondent Judge made a handwritten “order” for the immediate
release of the motorcycle. The Judge
then handed over to a police officer the “order” and instructed the
latter to enter it in the police blotter. He assured the officer that he would discuss the matter with complainant
the following day, which he did. He
explained to the complainant that he ordered the release of the motor vehicle
being the only “stand-in means of transportation of Arboleda for the
sickly members of his family.” He, however, assured the complainant that
he could have the vehicle promptly returned by Arboleda if evidence against the
latter’s claim of ownership would warrant. Judge Ilanga added that
the motor vehicle was taken without a search warrant or lawful order and
without giving any receipt for the impounded vehicle.

The Office of the Court Administrator, after an evaluation of the
respective allegations of the parties, submitted its recommendation, thus:

“PREMISES CONSIDERED, the abovementioned administrative case
is respectfully submitted for the consideration of the Honorable Court, with
the recommendation that Judge Evelio Ilanga, MTC, Dumangas, Iloilo, be fined
equivalent to one (1) month’s salary, with a stern WARNING that a repetition of
the same or similar acts in the future will be dealt with more severely.”

In the Court’s resolution, dated 18 May 1994, the parties were
required to manifest whether they would agree to submit the case on the basis
of the pleadings already on record. Complainant filed his compliance, dated on 08 June 1994, while respondent Judge submitted his
manifestation, dated 20 June 1994, in response to our resolution. The parties both expressed their consent to
the submission of the case for decision on the basis of the pleadings
heretofore on file with the Court.

Admittedly, the impounding of the motor vehicle was not the
subject matter of any case pending before respondent Judge. He thus acted possessing neither the
authority nor the jurisdiction to issue the release order. It was not for him to decide at that
juncture whether or not the police officers failed to observe the proper procedures in the confiscation of
the motor vehicle.

A judge, in and outside of court, is expected to act with
circumspection and to always bear in mind that his actuations are reflective
not only of his own reputation but so of the dignity of the entire judiciary as
well. A tarnish to that image deserves
a rebuke not only on himself alone but so also, ultimately, on the entity to
which he belongs. Repeatedly, we have
said, a municipal trial judge occupies the forefront of the judicial arm that
is closest in reach to the public he serves, and he must accordingly act at all
times with great constancy and utmost probity. In this grave responsibility, he has failed.

WHEREFORE, finding respondent Judge guilty of gross
misconduct, this Court imposes on him a fine in the amount of P2,000.00. He is further WARNED against committing
similar infractions in the future, which will be severely penalized.

SO ORDERED.

Feliciano, (Chairman), Bidin, Romero, and Melo, JJ., concur.