Facts:
Bobby Carriaga is the complainant in criminal cases
for estafa, less serious physical injuries and grave threats against jail
guards Antonio Redula and Arsenio Tuanda pending before the sala
of Municipal Judge Romeo Anasario.
Bobby filed an administrative complaint against
Judge Anasario for gross ignorance of the law and partiality. He alleged
that Judge Anasario is biased in favor of the defendants considering that he
admitted defendants' affidavits even if they were filed 120 days late. He filed
a motion for inhibition but it was denied, prompting him to file the instant
administrative complaint.
In his manifestation, Judge Anasario
stated that the requirement that the accused shall file a
counter-affidavit in ten (10) days time is merely directory, not mandatory.” He
stressed that he considered “what is substantial justice rather than mere
technicalities” in admitting the counter-affidavits belatedly filed. He
also maintained that there is no rule that late counter-affidavits should be
expunged from the records.
Issue:
Whether or not the requirement that the accused shall file a counter-affidavit in 10 days is mandatory.
Held:
The Revised Rule on Summary Procedure was
promulgated specifically to achieve an expeditious and inexpensive determination
of cases. In allowing the submission of the accused’s counter-affidavits
after 130 days from notice, respondent judge violated the Rule. He
should have observed that Section 12(b) of the Rule provides that the court
shall issue an order “which shall require the accused to submit his
counter-affidavit and the affidavits of his witnesses” x x x “not later than
ten (10) days from receipt of said order.” Section 19(e) of the same
Rule also provides that a motion for extension to file affidavits is
prohibited. Clearly, these provisions are mandatory.
When the law or rule is clear, there is no room for
interpretation and judges have no option but to obey.
Issue:
Whether or not Judge Anasario is administratively liable
Held:
We thus find that respondent judge is
administratively liable for violation of the Supreme Court Rules, specifically
the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure.
As to the charge of partiality, we find the same to
be without merit. That he admitted accused’s counter-affidavits is not a
sufficient basis to conclude that he is biased. Mere suspicion of
partiality is not enough. There should be clear and convincing evidence to
prove the charge.
Judge Anasario was declared
guilty of violation of Supreme Court Rules and was FINED in the sum of P11,000.00.
(Bobby Carriaga vs. Mun. Judge Romeo L. Anasario, A.M. No. MTJ-02-1403, February
3, 2003)
0
Comments
