SECOND DIVISION
DR.
FRANCISCA T.
YOINGCO AND ATTY. NESCITO C. HILARIO,
Complainants,
A.M.
No.
MTJ-03-1489
March 31, 2004
-versus-
HON.
CONCEPCION
V. GONZAGA, PRESIDING JUDGE,
MUNICIPAL
TRIAL
COURT OF STO. TOMAS, BATANGAS,
Respondent.
R
E S O L U
T I O N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
J.:cralaw:red
In a verified complaint
received by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) on June 20,
2002,
Dr. Francisca T. Yoingco and Atty. Nescito C. Hilario charged
respondent
Judge Concepcion V. Gonzaga of the Municipal Trial Court of Sto. Tomas,
Batangas, with “Grave Abuse of Authority and/or Oppression and Gross
Ignorance
of the Law, Jurisprudence and Rules” relative to Criminal Cases Nos.
2000-185
to 2000-188, entitled “People of the Philippines vs. Dr. Francisca T.
Yoingco”
for Violation of B.P.
22.
Complainant Dr. Yoingco
is the accused while Atty. Hilario is her counsel in the said criminal
cases. Before arraignment could be set, Dr. Yoingco filed a
Motion
to Quash on the ground that the MTC of Batangas has no jurisdiction
because
the subject checks were made, drawn and issued at the office of
complainant
in Makati, Metro Manila.chanrobles virtual law library
After hearing, respondent
Judge Gonzaga issued an Order dated February 19, 2002 denying the
Motion
to Quash, ratiocinating, thus:
The ground of the Motion
to Quash is improper venue. Considering that it is basic in law,
as held in the case of Dacoycoy vs. Intermediate Appellate Court 195
SCRA
641 (1991) that trial court may not motu propio dismiss a complaint on
the ground of improper venue, the court deemed it wise and prudent, to
schedule the Motion for hearing, in order that it may be said that all
efforts were exerted, to insure compliance with due process, to which
every
party is entitled, towards an ideal and impartial administration of
justice.cralaw:red
Unlike jurisdiction
over the subject matter, in these particular cases, the four checks
issued
by accused Dra. Yoingco to private complainant Norberto Carandang,
which
is conferred only by law, within the exclusive jurisdiction of
Municipal
Trial Courts, and may not be conferred by consent or waiver upon a
court,
which otherwise would have no jurisdiction, the venue of an action as
fixed
by statute, may be changed by consent of the parties and an objection
on
improper venue may be waived by the failure of the accused to raise it
at the proper time. This was what actually happened in the
instant
cases for Violation of B.P.
22, when accused failed to raise the question of improper venue at
the first instance that the cases were filed in court, more than a year
ago.cralaw:red
Rules as to jurisdiction
can never be left to the consent or agreement of the parties.
Venue
is procedural, not jurisdictional and hence may be waived. It is
meant to provide convenience to the parties rather than restrict their
access to the court, as it relates to the place of trial. In such
an event, the court may still render a valid judgment.[1]
In the same order, respondent
set the arraignment of Dr. Yoingco on April 2, 2002. The
arraignment
was reset to June 10, 2002 but no arraignment was held on the said date
up to the filing of the present administrative case.chanrobles virtual law library
Complainants charge
respondent with:
I. Grave
abuse
of authority and/or oppression:
a. that
Judge
Gonzaga violated the Constitutional right of Dr. Yoingco to speedy
trial
as provided for under the enabling law, R.A.
8493, and as implemented by Supreme Court Circular No. 38-98 dated
August 11, 1998 which provides:
“The
arraignment,
and the pre-trial if the accused pleads not guilty to the crime
charged,
shall be held within thirty (30) days from the date the court acquires
jurisdiction over the person of the accused. .”
II. Gross
ignorance
of the law, jurisprudence, and rules:
a. The
ground
raised in the Motion to Quash was that the MTC of Sto. Tomas, Batangas
has no territorial jurisdiction over the case and the person of Dr.
Yoingco
because the alleged transaction took place in Makati City, including
the
issuance of the checks, the presentment to the bank of the said checks,
and dishonor of the same and this was duly proven thru
testimonial
and documentary evidence during the hearing of her Motion to Quash;
however,
such findings were not included in the subject Order of February 19,
2002
in utter violation of Section 1 of Rule 36 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure;chanrobles virtual law library
b. Judge
Gonzaga
declared that the ground of the said Motion to Quash is venue, and not
territorial jurisdiction over the case and person of the accused which
clearly shows her incompetence and gross ignorance of the law and rules;
c. It is gross
ignorance
of jurisprudence for the respondent Judge to equate the issue of
territorial
jurisdiction with venue, as she cited the case of Dacoycoy vs.
Intermediate
Appellate Court (195 SCRA 641); and
d. It is
falsification
of judicial records or sheer gross ignorance on the part of Judge
Gonzaga
when she ruled that Dr. Yoingco “failed to raise the question of
improper
venue at the first instance that the cases were filed in court, more
than
a year ago” because Dr. Yoingco is NOT questioning ‘improper venue’ as
claimed by the respondent Judge, but the territorial jurisdiction of
the
MTC of Sto. Tomas, Batangas to try and decide the subject criminal
cases
since the transaction involving the issuance, presentment, and dishonor
of the subject checks were all done and had transpired in Makati City.[2]chanrobles virtual law library
On July 4, 2002,
complainants
filed a Notice of Withdrawal of Complaints with the OCA stating that
respondent
had explained to them the reasons for her action/inaction that justify
the delay of the disposition of the criminal cases and that it would
take
time for them to verify the reasons given by Judge Gonzaga; and praying
that their complaints be considered withdrawn without prejudice.[3]
On July 25, 2002, the
OCA referred the Complaint to respondent for her Comment.cralaw:red
In her Comment, respondent
alleges, as follows:
1. Four (4)
criminal cases for violation of B.P.
22 were filed against complainant Dr. Francisca T. Yoingco who
never
appeared in court and that it was her daughter-in-law who negotiated an
amicable settlement in her behalf but which ended in futility.
Hence,
proceedings as mandated began on June 13, 2001 when the court acquired
jurisdiction over the person of the accused;
2. When the
accused
appeared for the first time, the court, seeing her advanced age, was
moved
to renew the efforts for settlement which her daughter-in-law had
initiated.
This was the reason the Court cited the Dacoycoy case even if it was
civil
in nature to support the stand that the court could motu proprio
dismiss
the case and resolve the motion; andchanrobles virtual law library
3. It is not true
that
the delay in the arraignment of the accused was attributable to
her.
She points out that criminal cases were scheduled for trial once a week
due to the unavailability of the public prosecutor. The trial of
the case had been set but was deferred and postponed due to litigated
motions
filed and intervening incidents caused by the accused and counsel.[4]
In a Memorandum dated
March
13, 2003,[5]
the OCA recommends that the complaints be re-docketed as a regular
administrative
case and that respondent be held administratively liable for acting on
the criminal cases over which her court has no jurisdiction and fined
in
the amount of P10,000.00 with a stern warning that a repetition of the
same or similar acts would be dealt with more severely.
In a Resolution dated
April 21, 2003,[6]
the Court noted the report of the OCA and directed that the case be
re-docketed
as a regular administrative matter. In another Resolution[7]
of even date, the Court required the parties to manifest whether or not
they were submitting the case for resolution based on the pleadings
filed.
Complainants responded in the affirmative.[8]
In her letter dated May 29, 2003, respondent likewise manifested her
willingness
to submit the case for resolution based on the pleadings filed but
points
out that despite the pleadings filed and the notice of withdrawal of
complaints,
she cannot understand why this became an administrative matter.cralaw:red
In compliance with the
Court’s Resolution dated March 8, 2004, the Clerk of Court of the
Municipal
Trial Court of Sto. Tomas, Batangas, furnished us with certified true
copies
of the four criminal complaints adverted to in the present
administrative
case.cralaw:red
After going over the
records of the case, the Court agrees with the findings of the OCA,
except
for the recommended penalty.cralaw:red
First, as stated by
the OCA, the withdrawal of a complaint by the complainant does not
necessarily
ensure the dismissal of the administrative case. As a general
rule,
the Court does not dismiss administrative cases against members of the
bench merely on the basis of withdrawal of charges[9]
even as the notice of withdrawal of the complaints filed by herein
complainants
is only a provisional withdrawal due to their assertion that they need
time to verify the reasons given by Judge Gonzaga for the delay in the
disposition of the criminal cases.chanrobles virtual law library
Secondly, the Court
agrees with the finding of the OCA that the charge of delay in the
arraignment
of Dr. Yoingco cannot be considered against Judge Gonzaga in view of
the
lack of public prosecutor assigned to her court and the postponements
at
the instance of Dr. Yoingco. Thus, respondent should be
exonerated
from the charge of grave abuse of authority and oppression.cralaw:red
Thirdly, the Court agrees
with the recommendation of the OCA that respondent be found guilty of
gross
ignorance of the law, jurisprudence and the rules.cralaw:red
The Motion to Quash
is primarily anchored on lack of jurisdiction considering that the
subject
checks were not made, drawn and issued at Sto. Tomas, Batangas but in
Makati
City; that the MTC of Sto. Tomas, Batangas has no jurisdiction over the
criminal complaints as the elements of the offense of violation of
Bouncing
Checks Law occurred in Makati City which is outside of the territorial
jurisdiction of the MTC of Sto. Tomas, Batangas.chanrobles virtual law library
However, a close scrutiny
of the allegations in the four criminal complaints show that all the
subject
checks were made, drawn and issued at Barangay San Vicente, Sto. Tomas,
Batangas, all within the territorial jurisdiction of the court presided
over by respondent.cralaw:red
Unfortunately, respondent
denied complainants’ Motion to Quash for the wrong reasons: that the
ground
relied upon by Dr. Yoingco is improper venue which is only procedural,
not jurisdictional and can be waived by failure to raise it at
the
proper time; that Dr. Yoingco failed to raise the ground of
improper
venue at the first instance that the cases were filed in court more
than
a year ago; and that by virtue of the ruling of the Court in a
civil
case, entitled, Dacoycoy vs. IAC,[10]
that when the ground is improper venue, the court cannot motu propio
dismiss
it but has to conduct hearing to ensure compliance with due process.cralaw:red
Respondent’s denial
of the motion to quash is patently erroneous. It is an exception to the
hornbook doctrine that when the subject of the complaint may be subject
to judicial review, the administrative complaint shall be dismissed.[11]
In criminal proceedings, improper venue is lack of jurisdiction.[12]
Venue in criminal cases is an essential element of jurisdiction.[13]
Unlike in a civil case where venue may be waived, this could not be
done
in a criminal case because it is an element of jurisdiction. It
is
basic that one can not be held to answer for any crime committed by him
except in the jurisdiction where it was committed.[14]
Respondent’s irresponsible
convolution of the concept of venue in a civil case and in a criminal
case
exhibits ignorance of the law that caused undue confusion to the herein
complainants. When a judge displays an utter lack of familiarity
with the Rules
of Criminal Procedure, he erodes the public confidence in the
competence
of our courts. Such is ignorance of the law.[15]chanrobles virtual law library
Considering that this
is her first offense and considering further that there is no
allegation
or proof that the same was committed with malice or with bad faith or
for
monetary consideration,[16]
and the same did not cause undue damage or injury to complainants as
the
motion to quash was denied, although for the wrong reason, the Court
deems
it just to reprimand respondent.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, respondent
JUDGE CONCEPCION V. GONZAGA is hereby REPRIMANDED with a stern warning
that a repetition of the same or similar acts would be dealt with more
severely.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Quisumbing, J., (Acting
Chairman), Callejo, Sr., and Tinga, JJ., concur.
Puno, J., (Chairman), on
official leave.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, pp. 17-19.
[2]
Rollo, pp. 3-5.
[3]
Rollo, p. 24.
[4]
Rollo, pp. 26-28.
[5]
Rollo, pp. 34-36.
[6]
Rollo, p. 37.
[7]
Rollo, p. 38.
[8]
Rollo, p. 40.chanrobles virtual law library
[9]
Enojas, Jr. vs. Gacott, Jr., 322 SCRA 272, 278-279 (2000).
[10]
195 SCRA 641.chanrobles virtual law library
[11]
Calleja vs. Santelices, 328 SCRA 61, 67 (2000); Vda. De Danao vs.
Ginete
395 SCRA 542, 547 (2003).
[12]
Ganchero vs. Bellosillo, 28 SCRA 673, 676 (1969).chanrobles virtual law library
[13]
Lopez vs. City Judge, 18 SCRA 616, 619 (1966).
[14]
Hernandez vs. Albano, 19 SCRA 95, 100 (1967).
[15]
Oporto, Jr. vs. Judge Monserate, 356 SCRA 443, 450 (2001).
[16]
Lu vs. Siapno, 335 SCRA 181, 187 (2000).chanrobles virtual law library |