Bobby Carriaga vs. Mun. Judge Romeo L. Anasario


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)





Comments
0 Comments

0 comments : on " Bobby Carriaga vs. Mun. Judge Romeo L. Anasario "

Post a Comment