Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION A.M. No.

MTJ-96-1109 April 16, 2001

JOVENAL OPORTO, JR., complainant, vs. JUD E EDDIE P. MONSERATE, respondent. RESOLUTION PARDO, J.! The Case The case is an administrative complaint1 charging Judge Eddie P. Monserate (hereafter, "Judge Monserate" , Municipal !ircuit Trial !ourt, Magarao"!anaman, !amarines #ur $ith "ignorance of the la$, harassment and grave abuse of discretion." The Facts %n %ctober &1, 1''(, Ms. )ourdes *. #enar, the $ife of the ma+or of the to$n $here the sala of Judge Monserate $as located, filed a complaint against #onn+ Rada and complainant, Jovenal %porto, Jr. (hereafter, "Rada" and "%porto" for "violation of *rticle 1,-- in relation to *rticle 1,&& of the Revised Penal !ode." The complaint. $as filed $ith the Municipal !ircuit Trial !ourt, Magarao"!anaman, !amarines #ur and $as doc/eted as !riminal !ase 0o. -111.( The complaint, ho$ever, $as not under oath.2 %n 0ovember 13, 1''(, Judge Monserate issued a $arrant for the arrest of %porto and co"accused Rada. 4e fi5ed bail at fourteen thousand pesos (P1.,333.33 each., %n Januar+ -2, 1''2, on the mista/en notion that the case fell $ithin the 6urisdiction of the Regional Trial !ourt, Judge Monserate conducted a preliminar+ investigation, declared that there $as probable cause and ordered that the records of the case be for$arded to the Provincial Prosecutor %ffice, !amarines #ur, for appropriate action.1 %n 7ebruar+ -1, 1''2, the Provincial Prosecutor of !amarines #ur ' found that the crime committed $as not estafa but falsification, the penalt+ for $hich $as prision correccional in its medium and ma5imum periods and a fine of not more than five thousand pesos (P(,333.33 , and thus fell $ithin the e5panded 6urisdiction of the Municipal Trial !ourts and Municipal !ircuit Trial !ourts. *ccording to the Provincial Prosecutor, there $as no deceit, thus the crime $as not "estafa through falsification of commercial documents" but for falsification onl+. 4e remanded the case to the court of origin for further proceedings.13 %n Jul+ ', 1''2, complainant %porto filed $ith the E5ecutive Judge, Regional Trial !ourt, 0aga !it+, an administrative complaint charging Judge Monserate $ith "ignorance of the la$, harassment and8or grave abuse of discretion."11 %n Jul+ 11, 1''2, E5ecutive Judge 9avid !. 0aval (hereafter, "Judge 0aval" found the complaint to be sufficient in form and substance and re:uired Judge Monserate to file a responsive pleading $ithin fifteen (1( da+s from receipt of the order.1%n *ugust 12, 1''2, 9eput+ !ourt *dministrator Re+naldo ). #uare; $rote Judge 0aval and re:uested him to for$ard to the %ffice of the !ourt *dministrator, #upreme !ourt, the original of the administrative complaint considering that he charges against Judge Monserate "appear to be serious or perhaps less serious in nature."1&

%n #eptember 13, 1''2, in compliance $ith the re:uest, !ler/ of !ourt Rosario <. Torrecampo for$arded the entire record of the case against Judge Monserate to the %ffice of the !ourt *dministrator, #upreme !ourt.1. %n 0ovember 11, 1''2, 9eput+ !ourt *dministrator Re+naldo ). #uare; submitted the follo$ing recommendation to the !ourt= ">4ERE7%RE, premises considered, the undersigned respectfull+ recommends that the above" entitled administrative case be given a regular doc/et number and respondent Judge Eddie Monserate, be given a #E?ERE REPR@M*09 for his failure to /eep abreast $ith the latest la$s, rulings and 6urisprudence affecting his 6urisdiction and for his failure to be more circumspect of (sic his dut+ as a 6udicial officer $ith $arning that a repetition of similar offense $ill be severel+ dealt $ith b+ the !ourt."1( %n Januar+ --, 1'',, the !ourt resolved to refer the case to the E5ecutive Judge, Regional Trial !ourt, 0aga !it+ for investigation, report and recommendation.12 %n Jul+ ,, 1'',, E5ecutive Judge *ntonio 0. Aerona submitted a report $hich stated that the case against complainant %porto $as dismissed on June 13, 1'',, due to the prosecutionBs lac/ of interest and its failure to prosecute.1, %n 7ebruar+ 11, 1''1, the !ourt re:uired the %ffice of the !ourt *dministrator to submit its evaluation, report and recommendation $ith respect to the case against Judge Monserate.11 %n 7ebruar+ 1,, 1''1, 9eput+ !ourt *dministrator Re+naldo ). #uare;1' again submitted a report reiterating his recommendation of 0ovember 11, 1''2.-3 %n March -', -333, the !ourt re:uired the parties to manifest if the+ $ere $illing to submit the case for resolution based on the pleadings alread+ filed.-1 %n *pril 1., -333, Judge Monserate manifested that he $as $illing to submit the case for resolution on the basis of the pleadings alread+ filed.-%n June -1, -333, the !ourt resolved to consider its resolution of March -', -333 as served upon complainant since it $as returned "unserved."-& 0o$, the merits. The Courts Ruling *t the outset, $e dismiss the charges against Judge Monserate for "harassment." There is no basis for the charge. !omplainant %porto alleged that he $as harassed b+ the cler/ of court $hen the cler/ referred him to a specific bonding compan+ $hen he in:uired as to the amount of his bail. @t $as the cler/ of court $ho referred him to the bonding compan+, not Judge Monserate. !omplainant %porto charged Judge Monserate $ith "gross ignorance of the la$" for issuing a $arrant of arrest against him despite the fact that, First, the criminal complaint against him $as not under oath, and Second, the affidavits and s$orn statements of the prosecution $itnesses $ere li/e$ise not under oath and certified. >e agree $ith the !ourt *dministrator that disciplinar+ action against Judge Monserate on this ground is $arranted. >e :uote pertinent portions of the report=-. "C@t has been held, ho$ever, that if the complaint is not s$orn to, the defect is merel+ one of form $hich cannot invalidate the 6udgment rendered thereon (D.#. vs. <ibal, . Phil. &2' . 4o$ever, respondent should have e5ercised diligent effort to read the complaint so that this minor problem

should have been remedied immediatel+ b+ merel+ calling the complainant and s$earing said complaint to him. "Moreover, had he endeavored to e5ert simple effort to read the complaint and made research on the latest 6urisprudence and la$s, he $ould not have gone through conducting a preliminar+ investigation on the case for the same falls e5clusivel+ $ithin his courtBs 6urisdiction under R* ,2'1 or the E5panded Jurisdiction of the MT!!Bs and M!T!Bs. 555 "Even granting for the sa/e of argument that the case falls $ithin the 6urisdiction of the Regional Trial !ourt as a case for Estafa thru 7alsification of !ommercial document as respondent alleged $hen the case $as first returned b+ the %ffice of the Provincial Prosecutor, he should have made the necessar+ corrections as to form to reflect the proper offense thus violated, to avoid an+ guess$or/ and to apprise the accused of the la$ he violated." Rule 113, #ection & of the Revised Rules of !riminal Procedure defines a complaint as, "a sworn written statement charging a person $ith an offense subscribed b+ the offended part+, an+ peace officer or other public officer charged $ith the enforcement of the la$ violated." Rule 11-, #ection & (a li/e$ise re:uires that for purposes of preliminar+ investigation, the complaint and its accompan+ing affidavits and supporting documents be "sworn to before an+ fiscal, state prosecutor or government official authori;ed to administer oath, or in their absence or unavailabilit+, a notar+ public, who must certify that he personall+ e5amined the affiants and that he is satisfied that the+ voluntaril+ e5ecuted and understood their affidavits (emphasis ours ." The re:uirement is mandator+. Judge MonserateBs oversight is deplorable. >e li/e$ise deplore Judge MonserateBs referral of the case to the Provincial Prosecutor on the mista/en opinion that the crime charged fell $ithin the 6urisdiction of the Regional Trial !ourt. >e cite the report of the Provincial Prosecutor, to $it= "@n passing, $hile the 4onorable !ourt believed that the crime committed $as Estafa Through 7alsification of !ommercial 9ocument, ho$ever, it did not sa+ so in its Resolution rel+ing that this %ffice $ill revie$ the case an+$a+. #uch action bespea/s of its indecisiveness pre6udicial to the "right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him." (People v. #arte, 1&3 #!R* .31 . @t must be remembered that $hen a 6udge conducts preliminar+ investigation he becomes an e5tension of the Provincial Prosecutor, thus he should ma/e sure of the crime charged to avoid an+ guessing game."-( 4ad Judge Monserate endeavored to e5ert a little more effort to read the criminal complaint, he $ould not have conducted a preliminar+ investigation since the charge falls s:uarel+ $ithin the 6urisdiction of his court.-2 The allegations in the criminal complaint state that accused %porto and his co"accused stole the blan/ chec/. There $as no deceit emplo+ed b+ them to induce )ourdes #enar to part $ith her chec/. !learl+, the crime committed $as not estafa. !ompetence is a mar/ of a good 6udge. >hen a 6udge displa+s an utter lac/ of familiarit+ $ith the Rules of !riminal Procedure, he erodes the publicBs confidence in the competence of our courts. #uch is gross ignorance of the la$. 4aving accepted the e5alted position of a 6udge, Judge Monserate o$es the public and the court the dut+ to be proficient in the la$.-, *s a 6udge, Judge Monserate is "e5pected to /eep abreast of la$s and prevailing 6urisprudence."-1 Dnfamiliarit+ $ith the Rules of !ourt is a sign of incompetence. <asic rules must be at the palm of his hand. * 6udge must be ac:uainted $ith legal norms and precepts as $ell as $ith procedural rules.-' The Fallo >4ERE7%RE, $e find respondent Judge Eddie P. Monserate guilt+ of gross ignorance of the la$ and resolve to @MP%#E upon him a 7@0E in the amount of five thousand pesos (P(,333.33 , $ith $arning that a repetition of the same or similar act $ould be dealt $ith more severel+. #% %R9ERE9.

Davide, Jr , C J , !Chairman" #uno, $apunan, and %nares&Santiago, JJ , concur.

Foo"#o"$% 7iled b+ Jovenal %porto, Jr. $ith the %ffice of the E5ecutive Judge (Judge 9avid !. 0aval , Regional Trial !ourt, 0aga !it+ on Jul+ 13, 1''2 (Memorandum for 4on. *ndres R. 0arvasa, !hief Justice, #upreme !ourt of the Philippines, Rollo, pp. 1"2, at p. 1.
1 -

7alsification b+ private individuals and use of falsified documents. 7alsification b+ public officer, emplo+eeE or notar+ or ecclesiastical minister.

&

The complaint read thus= "That on or about '=33 oBcloc/ in the morning of %ctober 1', 1''(, in the office of the complaining $itness, at #an @sidro, Magarao, !amarines #ur and $ithin the 6urisdiction of this 4onorable !ourt, said accused #onn+ Rada + *tun alias "*))*0", did then and there, $illfull+ and feloniousl+ too/ the blan/ chec/ belonging to the chec/ing account of the complaining $itness, $ith the Ri;al !ommercial <an/ing !orporation, 0aga <ranch under #erial 0o. 3((1&(, $ithout the /no$ledge and consent of the complaining $itness in the same chec/, attempted to encash the amount of P111,333.33 reflected in the chec/, $ith intent to cause damage in the complaining $itness and the said ban/."
. (

!omplaint, *nne5 "*", for ?iolation of *rt. 1,- of the Revised Penal !ode, Rollo, p. 1.

Memorandum for 4on. *ndres R. 0arvasa, !hief Justice, #upreme !ourt of the Philippines dated 7ebruar+ 1,, 1''1, Rollo, pp. (1"(1 at p. (1.
2 ,

!omplaint, *nne5 "<", Rollo, p. '. !omplaint, *nne5 "F", Rollo, pp. -3"-- at p. --. Through .th *ssistant Provincial Prosecutor 0ovelita ?illegas")lagono. !ompalint, *nne5 ")", Rollo, pp. -&"-( at pp. -."-(. !omplaint, Rollo, pp. &", at p. &. Rollo, p. -2. Rollo, p. -. Rollo, p. 1.

'

13

11

1-

1&

1.

Memorandum for 4on. *ndres R. 0arvasa, !hief Justice, #upreme !ourt of the Philippines dated 0ovember 11, 1''2, Rollo, pp. 1"2, at p. 2.
1( 12

Rollo, p. .3.

Memorandum for 4on. *ndres R. 0arvasa, !hief Justice, #upreme !ourt of the Philippines dated 7ebruar+ 1,, 1''1, Rollo, pp. (1"(1, at pp. (("(2 (:uoting the report of the E5ecutive Judge of the Regional Trial !ourt, 0aga, in full .
1, 11

Rollo, p. 23.

1'

*pproval recommended b+ then !ourt *dministrator *lfredo ). <enipa+o.

Memorandum for 4on. *ndres R. 0arvasa, !hief Justice, #upreme !ourt of the Philippines dated 7ebruar+ 1,, 1''1, Rollo, pp. (1"(1 at p. (1.
-3 -1

Rollo, p. 2-. Rollo, p. 2.. 'bid.

--

-&

Memorandum for 4on. *ndres R. 0arvasa, !hief Justice, #upreme !ourt of the Philippines dated 7ebruar+ 1,, 1''1, Rollo, pp. (1"(1, at pp. (2"(,.
-. -(

!omplaint, *nne5 ")", %rder of the Provincial Prosecutor, Rollo, pp. -&"-(, at p. -.. R. *. ,2'1, E5panded Jurisdiction of the MT!s and McT!s.

-2

0orthcastle Properties and Estate !orporation v. *cting Presiding Judge Estrellita M. Paas, MeT!, <ranch .(, Pasa+ !it+, &1, #!R* 1.1, at pp. 1.', 1(&"1(. (1''' .
-,

%ffice of the !ourt *dministrator v. Judge )oren;o <. ?eneracion, *. M. 0o. RTJ"''"1.&-, June -1, -333.
-1 -'

4ermogenes T. Ao;un v. 4on. 9aniel <. )iangco, *. M. 0o. MTJ"',"11&2, *ugust &3, -333.

The )a$phil Pro6ect " *rellano )a$ 7oundation