A.M. No. MTJ-08-1715 Case Digest

A.M. No. MTJ-08-1715 March 19, 2009

Rodolfo Mago, complainant

vs Judge Aurea Penalosa-fermo, respondent

Ponente: Carpio Morales

Facts:

Mago filed a complaint before MTC of Camarines Norte for grave coercion against Sheriff Angeles of DARAB. Sheriff Angeles filed a counter-charge for grave threats against complainant and his sons.

Alleging that Judge Aurea committed gross ignorance of the law and bias in the disposition of his complaint and of the counter-charge against him, Mago filed this administrative complaint.

Mago alleges that he received a subpoena to attend a PI of the threat case against him, in compliance, he and his witnesses attended. There even without an assistance of a counsel they were examined through a prepared set of questions by the stenographer, Judge Aurea was not present then. Mago states also that after the PI, he was immediately arrested and was imprisoned for 3 days. He was released after posting the bail.

Judge Aurea explained that, What [complainant] claimed in his Letter-Complaint that the Court Stenographer has a prepared sheet of questions during the preliminary examination is true because after a complaint is filed, the undersigned prepares her questions for preliminary examination based on the affidavits of the complaining witnesses and the counter affidavits of the accused. This is done to make it easy for the Stenographers to take/print the transcript of the proceedings. Some witnesses even ask to read/study the question and request that they write down their answers to the questions for the Stenographers to finalize. Also, this is convenient when more than one preliminary examination is scheduled for the day. This procedure makes it easier for the Stenographers and the witnesses, too, considering the cramped office space.

Judge denied the arrest right after the PI, but rather claimed that after finding probable cause from the PI conducted, she issued a warrant of arrest the next day. 

Admitting that there was a delay in scheduling the arraignment, but this was because complainant's counsel opposed the same and filed an omnibus motion. . Respondent adds that after complainant was arraigned on June 6, 2006, the preliminary conference/pre-trial was set but was not terminated due to the absence of complainant or his counsel.

Held: SC agreed with OCA.

June 18, 2008, OCA came up with the evaluation that Judge was liable for her unfamiliarity with the basic rules on PI. There was irregularity during the PI when the Judge allowed the stenographers to handle the latter part of the proceedings.

As regards the issue of continuous hearing of the case by the respondent judge, we opine that the respondent judge only acted in good faith and in accordance with law when she continued to direct the herein complainant to attend the pre-trial. Based on the records, the Petition for Certiorari, Mandamus, Prohibition with Application for Mandatory Injunction and Ex-Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and the Motion for Reconsideration thereto filed by complainant with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 64, Labo, Camarines Norte were already denied; thus the respondent judge had the authority to proceed with the case. The postponements in the pre-trial were not attributable to the respondent judge but to the accused and his counsel.

Finally, on the issue of bias, complainant failed to submit any evidence showing the respondent biased or partial in hearing the case. Bias and partiality of a judge must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. Mere suspicion that a judge is bias or partial would not be enough.