-versus-
MUNICIPAL
JUDGE
ROMEO
L. ANASARIO,
Respondent.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
D E C I S I O N
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
J.:
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Before us is an administrative
complaint filed by Bobby Carriaga against Municipal Judge Romeo
Anasario
of the 2nd Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of
Manjuyod-Bindoy-Ayungon,
Negros Oriental for gross ignorance of the law and partiality.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In his verified letter-complaint
filed with this Court on September 3, 1999, Bobby Carriaga alleged that
he is the complainant in Criminal Cases Nos. B-21, B-22 and B-23 for
estafa,
less serious physical injuries and grave threats against jail guards
Antonio
Redula and Arsenio Tuanda.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In Criminal Cases Nos.
B-22 and B-23, covered by the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure,
respondent
judge issued an order requiring the accused to submit their
counter-affidavits
and those of their witnesses within ten (10) days from notice. While
the
accused received the order on March 5, 1998, however, they submitted
their
counter-affidavits only after 130 days or late by 120 days. On August
31,
1998, respondent judge issued an order admitting the counter-affidavits.[1]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Apprehensive that respondent
judge is biased in favor of the accused considering that he admitted
their
counter-affidavits, complainant filed a motion for inhibition. But it
was
denied in an order dated May 31, 1999, prompting him to file with this
Court the instant administrative complaint.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In his comment[2]
dated October 28, 1999, respondent judge denied the charges against
him,
contending that he has not admitted in evidence the accused’s
counter-affidavits.
In fact, the cases were calendared only for arraignment and preliminary
conference.[3]
Moreover, the Rule requiring the submission of counter-affidavits
within
ten (10) days is merely directory, not mandatory.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In her Report dated
January 8, 2002, Deputy Court Administrator Zenaida N. Elepaño
made
the following evaluation:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x x x The Rule on Summary
Procedure clearly and undoubtedly provides for the procedure and
imperative
duty of the court with regard to criminal cases falling under Summary
Proceedings.
Section 12 thereof provides:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(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.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(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.’chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Based on the foregoing
provisions, it is manifest that respondent has subverted the very
nature
of the Rule and defeated its objective of expediting the adjudication
of
cases.cralaw:red
"Respondent judge should
have made a ruling immediately without waiting for 130 days to lapse
considering
that the accused failed to submit their counter-affidavits within the
10-day
reglementary period prescribed. As aptly explained in Gachon vs.
Devera,
Jr.cralaw[274
SCRA 540 (1997)], the Rule on Summary Procedure was promulgated for the
purpose of achieving ‘an expeditious and inexpensive determination of
cases.’
If any of the parties fails to submit the evidence and other pleadings
within the reglementary period, the court can not thereby extend its
leniency
and wait for an indefinite time for him to comply, otherwise,cralawa
party can derail the proceedings and defeat the purpose of the summary
procedure by not filing the affidavits required. Hence,cralawthe
justification posed by respondent judge that his act of admitting the
counter-affidavits
of accused despite being filed out of time does not contravene the
spirit
of summary procedure because the same are not yet formally offered as
evidence
for the trial, making complainant’s objection thereof premature, is
unequivocally
a misapprehension of the rules."[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the same Report,
Deputy Court Administrator Elepaño recommended that respondent
judge
be fined in the sum of P1,000.00, with a warning that a repetition of
the
same act will be dealt with more severely.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In a Resolution dated
February 27, 2002, this Court ordered that this case be re-docketed as
an administrative matter and required the parties to manifest, within
twenty
(20) days from notice, whether they are submitting it for decision on
the
basis of the pleadings already submitted.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Both parties filed their
respective manifestations that they are willing to have the casecraso
decided. In his manifestation, respondent stated that "(t)he rule in
summary
procedurecralawis
that the court may allow the submissioncraof
affidavits and counter-affidavits even up to the time of the
preliminary
conference, and the requirement that the accused shall filecralawa
counter-affidavit in ten (10) days timecrais
merely directory, not mandatory."[5]
He stressed that he considered "what is substantial justice rather than
mere technicalities" in admitting the counter-affidavits belatedly
filed.[6]
He also maintained that there is no rule that late counter-affidavits
should
be expunged from the records.cralaw:red
We do not agree. The
Revised Rule on Summary Procedurecrawas
promulgated specifically to achievecraan
expeditious and inexpensive determination of cases.[7]
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 accusedcrato
submit his counter-affidavit and the affidavits of his witnesses"cralawx
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.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
When the law or rule
is clear, there is no room for interpretation and judges have no option
but to obey.[8]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We thus find that respondent
judge is administratively liable for violation of the Supreme Court
Rules,
specifically the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
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.[9]
There should be clear and convincing evidence to prove the charge.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Under Section 9, Rule
140, as amended, of the Revised Rules of Court, violation of Supreme
Court
Rules is classified as a less serious charge which, under Section 11(B)
of the same Rule, is punishable by: (a) suspension from office without
salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) month nor more than
three (3) months; or (b) a fine of more than P10,000.00 but not
exceeding
P20,000.00.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, respondent
Municipal Judge Romeo L. Anasario is declared guilty of violation of
Supreme
Court Rules and is FINED in the sum of ELEVEN THOUSAND PESOS
(P11,000.00),
with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall
be
dealt with more severely.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Puno, J., (Chairman),
Panganiban, Corona and Carpio-Morales, JJ., concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, at 4.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Id., at 9-12.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Id., at 10.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Id., at 56.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Id., at 62.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Id., at 64.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Teresita Bongato vs. Severo & Trinidad Malvar, G.R. No. 141614,
August
14, 2002. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
346 SCRA 230, 234-237 (2000).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Lu vs. Siapno, 335 SCRA 181, 188 (2000) citing Zamudio vs.
Peñas,
286 SCRA 367 (1998).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred