MARTINIANO O. DE LA CRUZ, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE JOSE P. DE LEON, MUNICIPAL COURT OF MARILAO, BULACAN, RESPONDENT.

Administrative complaint against respondent Hon. Jose P. de Leon,
Judge of the Municipal Court of Marilao, Bulacan for alleged miscarriage of
justice by ordering the dismissal allegedly without legal basis of an estafa
case.

Respondent was required to comment and upon the filing of said
comment, the Court referred the case to the Executive Judge of the Court of
First Instance of Bulacan for investigation, report and recommendation.  The Hon. Roque A. Tamayo, the Investigator,
conducted the required investigation and has sub­mitted his report and
recommendation.  Justice Lorenzo Relova
has endorsed said report to the Court as follows:

“Re:  Administrative Matter No. 2310-MJ

(Martiniano de la Cruz vs.

Judge Jose P. de Leon)

“Atty. Martiniano de la Cruz charged Municipal Judge Jose P.
de Leon of the Municipal Court of Marilao, Bulacan with miscarriage of justice.

“Records show that complainant filed Criminal Case No. 3412,
entitled:  ‘PP vs. Emilia Biano’, for
estafa alleging that accused Biano made false mani­festation and fraudulent
representation to complainant de la Cruz that she had sufficient funds to pay
her accommodation in the apartment of the complainant; that Biano failed and
refused to pay de la Cruz the total amount of P992.00 for her accommodation in
said apartment for the period from January to September 1978; and that Biano
abandoned said apartment by surreptitiously leaving the premises and removing
her baggages thereat.

“Respondent Judge conducted a preliminary investigation of
said criminal case No. 3412 following which he issued an order, dated January
5, 1979, dismissing the case stating that the liability of Biano, if any, is
purely civil in nature.

“Executive Judge Roque A. Tamayo of the CFI of Bulacan,
investigated this administrative matter and reported, among others:

‘From the foregoing, it is evident that the complainant had been
resorting to the obnoxious practice of renting his dwelling houses under very
strict conditions calling said lease contracts as ‘contracts of accom­modations’
which are not so and incorporat­ing in said contracts of lease such illegal
conditions as:

’18.  KUNG UMALIS AKO HINDI BAYAD, KASALANAN KO,
ESTAFA, RPC 315, sub-2-e.  (Exh. 4, par.
18 of contract of lease with Biano)

erroneous and unscrupulous belief that violation
of the contract would render said violations subject to the penal provisions of
Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code.  He
even enumerated cases of estafa he caused to be filed which are however
unsubstantiated as far as this Investigating Report is concerned and therefore
serves nothing but only to clutter the record for uncollected rentals of his
apartment units, thereby converting and relegating the office of the fiscal and
the courts into glorified collecting agencies, by invoking their coercive powers
of arrest and detention.

‘It is precisely on this pronouncement of the Honorable Supreme
Court that the respondent herein finding that the com­plainant was using his
court as a collection agency, reversed himself by dismissing Criminal Case No.
3412 (Exhibit ‘A’) filed against Emilia Biano, when in a former criminal case,
No. 2791, filed against Anastacia Seleterio, he entertained the case until
arraignment and trial, wherein the complainant Martiniano de la Cruz suddenly
made a turnabout and asked for the dismissal of this case on the ground that it
arose merely from a misunderstand­ing between him and Seleterio.  It is not (sic) possible that the dismissal
asked for by complainant de la Cruz and granted by the Court, was due to the
fact that said complainant Martiniano de la Cruz had already been paid by
Seleterio after his arrest and arraignment.’

and recommended that respondent ‘be
absolved of any responsibility and the administrative case against him be
dismissed’ x x x ‘that the complainant and not the respondent Judge be called
to task to answer for his unethical actuations which are unworthy of a member
of the Bar for using his knowledge of the law into ‘bludgeoning parties to pay
or face criminal prosecution’, in spite of being a professed ‘concerned
citizen’ and taxpayer, at a time when ‘concerned citizens’ must rally behind
the New Society’s call for compassion to his fellowmen.’

“Deputy Court Administrator Romeo D. Mendoza and the
undersigned respectfully recommend that: 
a) respondent Judge Jose P. de Leon be absolved from any responsibility
and the administrative case against him be dismissed for lack of merit; and b) complainant Atty. Martiniano de
la Cruz be reprimanded as a member of the Philippine Bar with warning that a
repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.

“October 29, 1981.

Respectfully submitted:

(SGD.) LORENZO RELOVA

Court
Administrator”

We have also read the report of Judge Tamayo and the annexes
thereto.  We are satisfied that the evidence
against respondent cannot justify any sanction against him.  On the contrary, the actuations of
complainant Atty. Martiniano de la Cruz revealed in the record are the ones
that call for disciplinary action against him as a member of the bar.

WHEREFORE, the complaint against respondent Judge Jose P.
de Leon is hereby ordered dismissed.  The
Court Administrator is directed to furnish the Solicitor General with the
pertinent parts of the record showing the apparently improper conduct of Atty.
de la Cruz in order that the appropriate investigation may be conducted with a
view to the institution, if warranted by the evidence, of the corresponding
administrative complaint against said lawyer.

Fernando, C.J., Makasiar, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Fernandez, Guerrero,
Abad Santos, De Castro, Melencio-Herrera, JJ.,
concur.

Teehankee, J., no part.