LANIE CERVANTES, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE HERIBERTO M. PANGILINAN AND CLERK OF COURT III CARMENCHITA P. BALOCO, BOTH OF MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, CUYO-AGUTAYA-MAGSAYSAY, PALA…

Cervantes versus Pangilinan

The Case

This is an administrative case for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and ignorance of the law, filed by Lanie Cervantes against Judge Heriberto Pangilinan and Clerk of Court Carmenchita Baloco of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Cuyo, Agutaya and Magsaysay in Palawan. The complainant was the accused in a criminal case for slander before that court, and she charged the two respondents with mishandling her case and refusing to accept her motion to admit a counter-affidavit. The case matters because it fixes the standard of judicial competence under the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure: a judge who issues a warrant of arrest and requires bail in a case governed by that Rule, without first determining its applicability, is guilty of gross ignorance of the law.

Procedural History

The case began as a letter-complaint dated March 11, 2002. The Office of the Court Administrator directed both respondents to comment, and both complied. The Supreme Court then referred the complaint to Executive Judge Nelia Fernandez for investigation, report and recommendation, but later set that resolution aside and directed Executive Judge Perfecto Pe of the Regional Trial Court of Puerto Princesa City to investigate instead. Judge Pe submitted an evaluation recommending that Judge Pangilinan be reprimanded and that Carmenchita Baloco be admonished. The Court referred that evaluation to the Office of the Court Administrator, which adopted the findings but took exception to the recommended penalty, proposing instead a fine equivalent to one-half of the judge's monthly salary and dismissal of the complaint against the clerk with admonition. The Court required the parties to manifest whether they were willing to submit the case for resolution on the pleadings; the copy sent to Judge Pangilinan was returned marked deceased. The case was resolved as a regular administrative matter.

Facts

On December 5, 2001, Judge Pangilinan issued a warrant of arrest against Lanie Cervantes in a criminal case for slander, and she posted bail fixed at 2,000 pesos. At her arraignment on December 18, 2001, she pleaded not guilty. On January 22, 2002, she filed a motion to admit her counter-affidavit and her sworn statement, but Clerk of Court Carmenchita Baloco refused to accept it in the judge's absence, fearing that he might scold her.

When the complainant returned as instructed, the clerk told her not to see the judge that day because he was still tired from his trip. The following day, Judge Pangilinan advised her that he could not accept her belatedly filed motion because she had already been arraigned. This refusal prompted the administrative complaint.

In their comments, the clerk explained that she refused the motion for lack of proper proof of service and advised the complainant to serve copies on the Chief of Police and the designated prosecutor, while the judge likewise justified the non-receipt on the same ground. The investigator found that the slander case was punishable by arresto menor with a fine of not more than 200 pesos and was therefore covered by the Rules on Summary Procedure; that no warrant of arrest should have been issued; and that the accused should have been ordered to file her counter-affidavit within ten days before arraignment. The judge himself admitted during cross-examination that these were lapses of judgment.

Issues

• Whether or not Judge Pangilinan is guilty of gross ignorance of the law for issuing a warrant of arrest and fixing bail in a case governed by the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure without first determining its applicability.
• Whether or not Clerk of Court Carmenchita Baloco is administratively liable for refusing to accept the motion to admit the counter-affidavit.

Applicable Provisions

Section 2 of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure provides:

Section 2. Determination of applicability. Upon the filing of a civil or criminal action, the court shall issue an order declaring whether or not the case shall be governed by this Rule. A patently erroneous determination to avoid the application of the Rule of Summary Procedure is a ground for disciplinary action.

This imposes on the judge the duty to declare at the outset whether the summary rule governs, a duty the Court found violated.

Section 12 of the same Rule provides:

Section 12. Duty of court. (a) If commenced by complaint. On the basis of the complaint and the affidavits and other evidence accompanying the same, the court may dismiss the case outright for being patently without basis or merit and order the release of the accused if in custody. (b) If commenced by information. When the case is commenced by information, or is not dismissed pursuant to the next preceding paragraph, the court shall issue an order which, together with copies of the affidavits and other evidence submitted by the prosecution, shall require the accused to submit his counter-affidavit and the affidavits of his witnesses as well as any evidence in his behalf, serving copies thereof on the complainant or prosecutor not later than ten (10) days from receipt of said order. The prosecution may file reply affidavits within ten (10) days after receipt of the counter-affidavits of the defense.

This required the judge to order the accused to file her counter-affidavit within ten days, which he failed to do before arraignment.

Section 16 of the same Rule provides:

Section 16. Arrest of accused. The court shall not order the arrest of the accused except for failure to appear whenever required. Release of the person arrested shall either be on bail or on recognizance by a responsible citizen acceptable to the court.

This limits arrest to failure to appear, and the Court found no showing that the complainant failed to appear when required.

Article 358 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

Article 358. Slander. Oral defamation shall be punished by arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period if it is of a serious and insulting nature; otherwise the penalty shall be arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos.

This shows that the slander charge carried a light penalty, bringing it within the coverage of the summary rule.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that instead of first ruling whether the case fell under the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, Judge Pangilinan immediately issued a warrant of arrest and fixed bail at 2,000 pesos. There being no showing that the complainant failed to appear when required, the warrant had no legal basis. The Court noted that the requirement to post bail is no longer necessary under the summary rule, and that under the bail law, bail is not generally required where the prescribed penalty is not higher than arresto mayor or a fine of 2,000 pesos or both, as in the slander case. Citing its earlier rulings, the Court held that a series of patent errors disregarding Sections 12 and 16, and failing to make the determination required by Section 2, cannot be countenanced. When a judge shows unfamiliarity with fundamental rules and procedures, he contributes to the erosion of public confidence in the judicial system and is guilty of gross ignorance of the law and procedures, a serious charge under Section 8 of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court. The Court quoted the penalties for a serious charge:

1. Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court may determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned and controlled corporations. Provided, however, that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave credits; 2. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than three (3) but not exceeding six (6) months; or 3. A fine of more than P20,000 but not exceeding P40,000.00.

On the second issue, the Court dismissed the complaint against Carmenchita Baloco for lack of merit, she being merely an acting clerk of court following the orders of the judge, but admonished her to be more circumspect in dealing with litigants who are less fortunate and not knowledgeable of the rules and procedure.

Doctrine

A judge must, upon the filing of a criminal action, issue an order declaring whether the case is governed by the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, and a patently erroneous determination to avoid its application is a ground for disciplinary action. Under the summary rule, the court shall not order the arrest of the accused except for failure to appear whenever required, and it must order the accused to file a counter-affidavit within ten days before arraignment. The requirement to post bail is no longer necessary under the summary rule, and bail is not generally required where the prescribed penalty is not higher than arresto mayor or a fine of 2,000 pesos or both. When the law is sufficiently basic, a judge owes it to his office to know and simply apply it; anything less is gross ignorance of the law, a serious charge under Section 8 of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court. Good faith and absence of malice do not abate liability in glaring instances of incompetence and ineptitude.

Disposition

The Court found Judge Heriberto Pangilinan guilty of gross ignorance of the law and fined him an amount equivalent to one-half of his monthly salary, to be deducted from the benefits due him in view of his death, and dismissed the complaint against Carmenchita Baloco for lack of merit while admonishing her to be more circumspect in dealing with litigants.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that a judge who issues a warrant of arrest and requires bail in a case covered by the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, without first determining its applicability, is guilty of gross ignorance of the law. Examiners use this case to test the mandatory duties of the court under Sections 2, 12 and 16 of the summary rule, and the rule that good faith does not excuse basic incompetence.