FACTS:

The case involves a complaint filed against respondent Judge Manuel T. Muro of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 54. The complainants alleged that the judge dismissed eleven cases against Mrs. Imelda Romualdez Marcos for violating Central Bank Foreign Exchange Restrictions solely based on newspaper reports regarding the lifting of foreign exchange restrictions by the government. The complainants argued that the judge acted prematurely and in indecent haste by relying on a mere newspaper account without waiting for the official issuance and full text of the Central Bank Circular or Monetary Board Resolution. The respondent judge defended himself by stating that there was no need to await further proceedings or a motion to quash before dismissing the cases.

The same case involved a criminal complaint against Imelda Marcos for violating Central Bank Circular No. 960. The accused filed a motion to dismiss citing the repeal of the law by a subsequent circular, Central Bank Circular No. 1353. The trial court granted the motion based on newspaper reports announcing the lifting of foreign exchange restrictions. The Court of Appeals set aside the dismissal order, stating that the trial court had acted in excess of jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion. They held that the newspaper report was not the proper form of publication required for the repeal to take effect. The full text of the circular was published in various newspapers, stating that violations of former regulations that were the subject of pending actions or investigations would still be governed by the regulations in force at the time the cause of action arose.

The issue in this case is whether or not a trial court judge may take judicial notice of a particular fact. Petitioners argued that the judge erred in taking judicial notice of the lifting of foreign exchange controls based solely on a newspaper account. They contended that judicial notice should only be taken of matters that are commonly known and universally accepted as true. They argued that the supposed lifting of foreign exchange controls is not a matter of common knowledge or general notoriety.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the respondent judge erred in taking judicial notice of the supposed lifting of foreign exchange controls.

2. Whether the respondent judge erred in considering CB Circular No. 1353 as basis for the dismissal of the criminal cases.

3. Whether or not Circular No. 1318 repealed Circular No. 960 and its pending cases.

4. Whether or not the respondent judge's actions violated the principles of impartiality and due process.

5. Whether the respondent judge acted with bias and impatience during the trial.

6. Whether the respondent judge's dismissal of the eleven cases was unjustified, erroneous, and violated the prosecution's right to due process.

7. Whether the respondent judge can be held liable for manifestly unjust orders through inexcusable negligence or ignorance.

8. Whether the lifting of foreign exchange controls effectively repealed Central Bank Circular No. 960.

9. Whether the judge's reliance on the President's announcement of the lifting of controls was justified.

10. Whether the judge should be held liable for gross ignorance of the law.

11. Whether the respondent judge is guilty of gross ignorance of the law.

12. What is the appropriate penalty for the respondent judge.

13. Ruling:

14. The Court finds the respondent judge guilty of gross ignorance of the law.

15. The appropriate penalty for the respondent judge is dismissal from service, resulting in the cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of leave credits and retirement benefits, and disqualification from reemployment in the government service.

16. Principles:

17. Due process and the rule of law must be observed in the adjudication of controversies.

18. Judges must not display bias or impartiality in their application of the law.

19. Ignorance of the law, when accompanied by bad faith, dishonesty, or deliberate intent to violate the law, constitutes gross ignorance of the law.

20. Gross ignorance of the law may result in the dismissal of the judge from service.

RULING:

1. Yes, the respondent judge erred in taking judicial notice of the supposed lifting of foreign exchange controls. Judicial notice is limited to facts that are of common and general knowledge, well-settled, and known to be within the limits of the court's jurisdiction. The court assumes that these facts are so notorious that they will not be disputed. In this case, the alleged lifting of foreign exchange controls was not of common knowledge or general notoriety. Moreover, the respondent judge based his decision on a mere newspaper account, which is often referred to as hearsay evidence.

2. Yes, the respondent judge erred in considering CB Circular No. 1353 as basis for the dismissal of the criminal cases. The circular took effect after the arraignment of the accused and the setting of the cases for trial. A saving clause in the circular explicitly states that any regulation on non-trade foreign exchange transactions that has been repealed, amended, or modified by the circular shall not be considered repealed insofar as pending actions or investigations are concerned. Therefore, the trial court should have proceeded with the hearing of the cases despite the existence of Circular No. 1353.

3. Circular No. 1318 did not repeal Circular No. 960 and its pending cases. The former specifically exempted from its purview all cases covered by the old regulations that were pending at the time of the passage of the new regulations.

4. The respondent judge's actions violated the principles of impartiality and due process. The judge dismissed the eleven criminal cases without giving the prosecution an opportunity to be heard or submit a written comment or oral argument. This act not only denied the prosecution's right to due process but also raised suspicion of partiality for the accused. The judge's haste in resolving the cases, without considering the prosecution's evidence or waiting for further clarification from the President's announcement, further demonstrated a violation of due process.

5. Yes, the respondent judge acted with bias and impatience during the trial. A judge should have the patience and circumspection to give the opposing party a chance to present evidence, even if he believes it may not be adequate. The respondent judge's display of petulance and impatience is inconsistent with the impartiality expected of a judge.

6. Yes, the respondent judge's dismissal of the eleven cases was unjustified, erroneous, and violated the prosecution's right to due process. The dismissal was ordered without any legal, factual, or equitable justification. Moreover, by dismissing the cases after arraignment and without the consent of the accused, the respondent judge could have invoked the defense of double jeopardy, causing legal complications and delay in the criminal proceedings.

7. The respondent judge can be held liable for manifestly unjust orders through inexcusable negligence or ignorance when there is a violation of basic constitutional rights. In the present case, the respondent judge failed to observe the diligence, prudence, and care required in the performance of his duty. His lack of any substantial argument to justify the dismissal reveals his negligence and ignorance of the law.

8. Yes, the lifting of the last remaining exchange regulations effectively repealed Central Bank Circular No. 960.

9. The judge's reliance on the President's announcement of the lifting of controls was justified as it was a public announcement by the Chief Executive.

10. The judge should be held liable for gross ignorance of the law.

PRINCIPLES:

• Judicial notice is limited to facts that are of common and general knowledge, well-settled, and known to be within the limits of the court's jurisdiction.

• The court assumes that facts subject to judicial notice are so notorious that they will not be disputed.

• Judicial notice is not the personal knowledge of the judge; it is taken only of matters that are commonly known.

• Facts of common knowledge are those that come to the knowledge of men generally in the course of ordinary experiences of life or those generally accepted by mankind as true and capable of ready and unquestioned demonstration.

• A law that is not yet in force and hence, still inexistent, cannot be subject to judicial notice.

• Judges should act and behave in a manner that inspires confidence in their impartiality and integrity.

• Judges should render decisions without bias or favoritism and should not only rid themselves of prepossessions but also ensure that their actions inspire belief in their impartiality.

• Judges should show their full understanding of the case, avoid arbitrary conclusions, and promote confidence in their intellectual integrity.

• Judges should apply the general law to particular instances and not seek to enforce their personal notions of substantial justice, as theirs is a duty to administer justice under the sanction of the law.

• Laws should be published before they take effect, and judges should be well-versed in the legal mandates on publication.

• Judges should not abuse their judicial power or discretion, even in the pursuit of speedy case disposal, and should not deprive parties of their right to be heard and due process of law.

• A judge should display impartiality and allow the opposing party to present evidence, even if it may not be adequate to overthrow the other party's case.

• Dismissal of cases without any legal, factual, or equitable justification violates the prosecution's right to due process.

• Double jeopardy cannot be invoked against the setting aside of a trial court's judgment of dismissal or acquittal when the prosecution is denied due process.

• A judge can be held liable for manifestly unjust orders through inexcusable negligence or ignorance if it results in a violation of legal precepts.

• The publication of laws and administrative rules is necessary to inform the public and guide their conduct.

• The lifting of foreign exchange controls effectively repealed the circular that imposed such controls.

• Judges should possess more than ordinary credentials and qualifications to merit their appointment as presiding judges.

• Judges can be held liable for gross ignorance of the law and incompetence in their decisions.