NIMFA ALBOS, COMPLAINANT,VS. JUDGE EUGENIO ALABA, RESPONDENT.

On 04 February 1991, complainant Nimfa Albos filed with the
Office of the Court Administrator a sworn letter-complaint, charging respondent
Judge Eugenio Alaba with misconduct, oppression and gross inefficiency.

The antecedents: On 27 August 1990, Nimfa Albos filed with the Municipal Trial Court
(“MTC”) of Tanauan, Leyte, a complaint for grave oral defamation
against one Rebecca Songalia. Sometime
in October 1990, the complainant, accompanied by her mother, went to the MTC to
verify the status of the case. The two
were told by the Clerk of Court that the complaint was “not yet
signed” by the respondent judge. Forthwith, they went to see the respondent judge himself to inquire
about it. The latter reportedly reacted
by throwing the complaint on top of his table and by exclaiming, “(h)ere
they are; I am returning them to you anyway, they are useless. You will lose in your case.”

The complainant hired a lawyer. The latter filed the complaint against Songalia with, instead, the
Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Leyte. Acting thereon, Assistant Prosecutor Yolanda Paganda filed the
corresponding information with the MTC of Tanauan (Criminal Case No. 4486).

On 14 January 1991, the complainant, through counsel, filed a
motion asking respondent Judge Alaba to inhibit himself from trying the
case. The respondent refused to act on
the motion and even allegedly challenged the complainant’s counsel to a fight. The judge subsequently dismissed the case.

In his comment, respondent Judge Alaba denied the allegations of
the complainant and sought to justify his questioned conduct on the case.

This Court, in its resolution, dated 13 February 1992, resolved
to refer the case to Executive Judge Fortunato B. Operario of the Regional Trial
Court of Tacloban, Leyte, for investigation, report and recommendation. When Judge Operario retired, Acting
Executive Judge Getulio M. Francisco took over the case. On 16 April 1993, the latter submitted his
findings and observations, as well as his recommendation, thus:

“FINDINGS
AND OBSERVATIONS

“A Criminal Case for Grave Oral Defamation was filed by herein
complainant Nimfa M. Albos against Rebecca Songalia with the Municipal Trial
Court of Tanauan, Leyte. The complaint
was filed on August 27, 1990 through the investigator of the INP (now PNP) of
Tanauan, Leyte. The complaint was not
entered in the docket book of the Municipal Trial Court of Tanauan, Leyte
because Judge Eugenio Alaba then was conducting lectures in different barangays
of Tanauan, Leyte regarding the Barangay Justice Law. Subsequently, Nimfa M. Albos sought the assistance of the Office
of the Provincial Prosecutor which conducted a preliminary investigation. The inquest prosecutor Yolanda Dagandan
filed the corresponding information with the Municipal Trial Court of Tanauan,
Leyte for Grave Oral Defamation against Rebecca Songalia which was docketed as
Criminal Case No. 4486. After the
arraignment, pre-trial was conducted by the Court on January 17, 1991. Thereafter, the parties agreed that the
trial on the merits be set for February 13 and 14, 1991. The prosecution then was represented by Sgt.
Gonzaga of the PNP of Tanauan, Leyte. Before February 13, 1991, the private prosecutor, Atty. Custodio Cañete,
filed a Motion to inhibit Judge Eugenio Alaba. The Judge, however, did not act on the motion on the ground that the
Motion allegedly failed to comply with Sec. 16 in relation to Sec. 5, Rule 110
of the New Rules on Criminal Procedure. When the case was called for trial on February 13, 1991, the complainant
Nimfa M. Albos did not appear but the officer of the PNP of Tanauan, Leyte who
appeared for the prosecution was present. The private prosecutor Atty. Custodio Cañete did not appear. The accused and her counsel, Atty. Benedicto
Ortega, were present. For failure on
the part of the complainant and her counsel to appear despite notice the
defense moved for the dismissal of the case invoking the constitutional right
of the accused to a speedy trial. Judge
Eugenio Alaba, however, reminded the defense counsel that the case was set for
two (2) days, that is, on
February 13 and 14, 1991. The Court
then denied the verbal motion for dismissal but told the parties that the case
would be called again on the following day, February 14, 1991. When the case was called again on the
following day, February 14, 1991, the accused and her counsel were present and
ready. Although the public prosecutor
appeared, the complainant was not around. The public prosecutor moved that the case be called later as he was
waiting for the complainant who told her mother that she would appear in Court,
to which the Court granted the same. Later, when the case was called again the complainant failed to appear,
for which the counsel for the defense, Atty. Benedicto Ortega, reiterated his
motion made the day before for the dismissal of the case invoking again the
constitutional right of the accused to a speedy trial. This time the Court granted the Motion and
dismissed the case.

“For not favorably acting on the motion of the private
prosecutor that Judge Eugenio Alaba inhibit himself in trying the case and,
ultimately, dismissing the case, the complainant in said criminal case No. 4486
filed this administrative case against Judge Eugenio Alaba, for Grave Misconduct,
Conduct Unbecoming of a Municipal Trial Court Judge, Oppression and Gross
Inefficiency.

“The cause of all this trouble is the failure on the part of
respondent Judge Eugenio Alaba to inhibit himself from acting on the case
despite the motion for inhibition filed by the private prosecutor Atty.
Custodio Cañete. Respondent Judge
Eugenio Alaba contended that the motion should bear the approval of the public
prosecutor arguing that the private prosecution shall always be under the
supervision and control of the public prosecutor. Although it is conceded that the prosecution in criminal cases
shall be under the supervision and control of the public prosecutor, and also
that it is for the presiding Judge to determine if he inhibits himself when
there is a motion for inhibition on the ground of an alleged partiality or
bias, yet it would have been safer and convenient for him to inhibit himself in
that case to avoid suspicion. As the
time-honored maxim goes, ‘A Judge, like Cesar’s wife, must not only be above reproach
but also above suspicion.’

“RECOMMENDATION

“From the above facts there is no grave Misconduct or Conduct
Unbecoming of a Municipal Trial Judge nor is there Oppression or Gross
Inefficiency on the part of respondent Judge Eugenio Alaba. For his failure to inhibit himself, despite
the Motion for Inhibition filed by the private prosecutor only on the basis
that the motion did not bear the conformity of the public prosecutor,
respondent Judge Eugenio Alaba should be admonished to be more cautious and extra
careful in his official actuations as presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial
Court of Tanauan, Leyte, with a warning that a repetition of the same in
the future would be dealt with more severely.”

In this Court’s resolution of 22 July 1993, the matter was
further referred to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation,
report and recommendation. Deputy Court
Administrator Bernardo P. Abesamis, with the concurrence of Court Administrator
Ernani Cruz-Paño, submitted a memorandum, dated 14 January 1994, to the
following effect:

“Re: Adm. Matter No. MTJ-91-517 (Nimfa Albos

vs. Judge Eugenio Alaba, MTC, Tanauan,

Leyte)

“This refers to the complaint of Nimfa Albos, charging Judge
Eugenio Alaba with grave misconduct, conduct unbecoming of a judge, oppression
and inefficiency.

“Complainant claims that on August 27, 1990, she filed a
signed complaint for grave oral defamation prepared by the PNP investigator,
accompanied by the affidavit of his witness, Alberto Babao. On October 20, 1990; when no action was
taken thereon, she and her mother went to court to verify its status. Informed that the same was not yet signed by
respondent, they approached him but he threw the papers on top of the table
declaring that they were anyway useless.

“The incident forced her to hire a lawyer. Another complaint was presented before the
Provincial Prosecutor of Leyte and this time an information was filed in
respondent’s court docketed as Crim. Case No. 4486. Subsequently, on January 17, 1991, her lawyer filed a motion to inhibit, but it was
never acted upon by respondent. They
were scolded by him, instead.

“In his comment (pp. 26-28, rollo) respondent contended that
he came to know of the complaint for grave oral defamation only when he
received a copy of this instant complaint. He was informed by his clerk of court that the complaint was withdrawn
by complainant herself, thus, it was not signed.

“The first time he saw complainant
was on January 21, 1991, when she inquired about the status of the motion for inhibition. She advised her to see the clerk of court
and then proceeded to the courtroom. Thereafter, his clerk of court showed him a notice of appearance filed
by Atty. Custodio Cañete and a motion for inhibition, without the conformity of
the public prosecutor. Nonetheless, he
waited for Atty. Custodio on the date stated in the pleading but he never
appeared.

“On February, 12, 1991, when complainant went to the court,
she was informed that the trial will proceed as scheduled on February 13 and
14. She never appeared on both
dates. Hence, the case was dismissed.

“By a resolution En Banc, dated 13 February 1992
(p. 53, id.) this matter was referred to Executive Judge Fortunato S. Operario,
for investigation, report and recommendation.

“In his report (pp. 247-249, id.), Judge Getulio M. Francisco,
who was designated to act on the case due to the retirement of Judge Operario
found that: 1) the complaint was not
docketed because respondent Judge Alaba was then conducting lectures in the
different barangays of Tanauan, Leyte regarding the Barangay Justice Law; 2)
for not favorably acting on the motion to inhibit and ultimately dismissing the
case, this administrative complaint was filed against respondent.

“For respondent’s ‘failure to inhibit himself, despite the
Motion for Inhibition filed by the private prosecutor only on the basis that
the motion did not bear the conformity of the public prosecutor x x x,’ Judge
Francisco recommended that respondent ‘be admonished to be more cautious and extra careful in his
official acts.’

“The report and recommendation of Investigating Judge
Francisco, did not discuss respondent’s failure to sign the complaint for grave
oral defamation, except his finding that the reason thereof was because
respondent has been conducting lectures.

“In this regard, respondent’s lectures regarding the Barangay
Law, may not be a valid reason for not attending to his judicial
functions. Assuming that he cannot sign
the subject complaint because it was not subscribed before him, complainant should
have been notified of such defect.

“All the foregoing considered, it is recommended that
respondent Judge Eugenio Alaba be reprimanded and admonished to exercise more
diligence in the performance of his official duties with a warning that the
commission of similar offense will be dealt with more severely.”

We find the foregoing memorandum of the
Office of the Court Administrator, which confirms, by and large, the findings
and recommendations of Executive Judge Getulio M. Francisco, to be satisfactory
and well taken.

A judge is bound never to consider lightly a motion for his
inhibition that questions or puts to doubt, however insignificant, his supposed
predilection to a case pending before him. While he must exercise great prudence and utmost caution in considering
and evaluating a challenge to his
impartiality, he is expected, nevertheless, to act with good dispatch. Any delay, let alone an inaction, on his
part can only fuel, whether justified or not, an intensified distrust on his
capability to render dispassionate judgment on the case.

True, the respondent judge cannot be said to have been completely
out of line in conducting lectures to various barangay units on the rudiments
of the Barangay Law. After all, judges
are, and they should be, encouraged to engage in any lawful enterprise that may
help bring about an improved administration of justice. But, be that as it may, judges must not allow themselves to be thereby
distracted from the performance of their judicial tasks which must remain at all
times to be their foremost and overriding concern.

WHEREFORE, respondent judge is hereby REPRIMANDED, and he is ADMONISHED to observe greater
assiduity in giving priority to his official duties than he has heretofore
evidently shown.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Regalado,
Davide, Jr., Romero, Nocon, Bellosillo, Melo, Quiason, Puno, and Kapunan, JJ.,
concur.