View full case

GERLIE M. UY v. JUDGE ERWIN B. JAVELLANA

FACTS:

The case involves a complaint filed by Public Attorneys Uy and Bascug against Judge Javellana of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of La Castellana, Negros Occidental, citing several instances of misconduct and irregularities. The public attorneys alleged gross ignorance of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure by Judge Javellana, including the issuance of a warrant of arrest in violation of the rule and failure to grant a motion to dismiss for non-compliance with the Lupon requirement. They also accused Judge Javellana of having a questionable relationship with Leilani "Lani" Manunag, alleging that Judge Javellana granted provisional liberty and reduced bail amounts based on instructions from Manunag's company. Additionally, the public attorneys claimed that Judge Javellana violated the rules by issuing warrants of arrest without properly determining the need for immediate custody and failed to observe the constitutional rights of the accused. They also alleged that Judge Javellana was habitually tardy, causing delays in proceedings, and implemented laws and rules inconsistently. The public attorneys provided specific instances to support their allegations.

In response to the complaint, Judge Javellana presented counter-affidavits and explanations for each allegation made against him. He denied the allegations of gross ignorance of the law and procedures, stating that he followed the rules and explained his actions in particular cases. He also denied acting as the co-agent of Manunag and claimed that their relationship was purely on official business. Judge Javellana explained his process of conducting preliminary examinations before issuing warrants of arrest, but admitted that he was not always informed when accused had voluntarily surrendered or been taken into custody. He argued that he did not violate the constitutional rights of the accused and explained his failure to attend a pre-trial due to health reasons. Lastly, he denied ruling whimsically and inconsistently, stating that he applied the law and rules based on his belief of fairness and justice.

These are only partial facts of the case.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not Judge Javellana is guilty of gross ignorance of the law for failing to apply the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure in the criminal cases pending before him.

  2. Whether or not Judge Javellana is guilty of gross misconduct for his business dealings, inconsistent implementation of the law, and mentioning his accomplishments for publicity.

  3. Whether the special cases of malicious mischief under Article 328 or the other mischiefs under Article 329 of the Revised Penal Code should be applied in the cases of People v. Cornelio and People v. Lopez, et al.

  4. Whether Judge Javellana's issuance of a warrant of arrest in People v. Cornelio and conducting a preliminary investigation in People v. Lopez, et al. is in violation of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure.

  5. Whether or not Judge Javellana's conduct of conducting a preliminary investigation in a case covered by the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure is justified.

  6. Whether or not Judge Javellana's denial of the Motion to Dismiss in a case not referred to the Lupon is in accordance with the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure.

  7. Whether Judge Javellana violated Canons 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

  8. Whether Judge Javellana's referral of accused persons directly to a bonding company gave the impression of favoritism and impropriety.

  9. Whether Judge Javellana's inconsistency in granting or denying motions for extension of time to file pleadings constituted arbitrary conduct.

  10. Whether Judge Javellana's actuations of using a Facebook account, posting news articles, and commenting on personal cases for the purpose of vanity or self-glorification violated the New Code of Professional Conduct.

  11. Whether Judge Javellana should be held administratively liable for the other charges against him contained in the complaint.

RULING:

  1. Yes, Judge Javellana is guilty of gross ignorance of the law. The Revised Rule on Summary Procedure should have been applied in the criminal cases for malicious mischief pending before him. The cases fell within the jurisdiction covered by the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, as they were violations of municipal or city ordinances. Judge Javellana's failure to apply the correct procedure constituted gross ignorance of the law.

  2. Yes, Judge Javellana is guilty of gross misconduct. His involvement in business relations with a certain individual, inconsistent implementation of the law, and mentioning his accomplishments for publicity are considered misconduct. These actions undermine the integrity of the judiciary.

  3. The appropriate penalty for the accused in People v. Cornelio and People v. Lopez, et al. should be determined based on Article 329 of the Revised Penal Code since there is no showing that they were charged with the special cases of malicious mischief under Article 328. If the value of the damage caused exceeds 1,000 pesos, the penalty is arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods. If the value is over 200 pesos but does not exceed 1,000 pesos, the penalty is arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods. If the amount involved does not exceed 200 pesos or cannot be estimated, the penalty is arresto menor or fine of not less than the value of the damage caused and not more than 200 pesos.

  4. Judge Javellana's issuance of a warrant of arrest in People v. Cornelio is in violation of Section 16 of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, which prohibits the order for arrest of the accused except for failure to appear whenever required. The justification that the accused was wanted for another crime is unacceptable as it is a separate case. In People v. Lopez, et al., conducting a preliminary investigation is not required or justified under the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure.

  5. The Supreme Court finds that Judge Javellana's conduct of conducting a preliminary investigation in a case covered by the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure is not justified. The Revised Rule on Summary Procedure was adopted to promote a more expeditious and inexpensive determination of cases, and to enforce the constitutional rights of litigants to the speedy disposition of cases. Judge Javellana cannot arbitrarily conduct proceedings beyond what is specifically laid down by the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, as it would lengthen or delay the resolution of the case, defeating the purpose of the rule.

  6. The Supreme Court agrees that Judge Javellana committed an error in denying the Motion to Dismiss in a case not referred to the Lupon. The Revised Rule on Summary Procedure clearly states that cases requiring referral to the Lupon for conciliation shall be dismissed without prejudice if there is no showing of compliance with such requirement. A Motion to Dismiss based on failure to comply with the Lupon requirement is an exception to the pleadings prohibited by the rule. Judge Javellana should have allowed and granted the Motion to Dismiss, albeit without prejudice.

  7. Yes, Judge Javellana violated Canons 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. His actions and conduct were inconsistent with the standards of impartiality, propriety, equality, and competence and diligence expected of judges.

  8. Yes, Judge Javellana's referral of accused persons directly to a bonding company gave the impression of favoritism and impropriety. By doing so, he conveyed the impression that he favored the bonding company and benefitted financially from such referrals.

  9. Yes, Judge Javellana's inconsistency in granting or denying motions for extension of time to file pleadings constituted arbitrary conduct. Without a satisfactory basis for the difference in his rulings on similar motions, Judge Javellana acted arbitrarily and prejudiced the Public Attorney's Office (PAO) lawyers.

  10. Yes, Judge Javellana's actuations violated the New Code of Professional Conduct. Judges are expected to behave in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Seeking publicity for vanity or self-glorification is incompatible with the high standards demanded by the Code of Judicial Conduct. Judge Javellana's actuations were considered gross misconduct.

  11. No, there is insufficient evidence to hold Judge Javellana administratively liable for the other charges in the complaint. However, he was warned to rectify certain matters to prevent future administrative complaints.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Judges are expected to have knowledge and apply the relevant laws and procedures in their cases.

  • Judges should avoid any business or personal relationships that may compromise their impartiality and integrity.

  • Judges should implement the law consistently and avoid any actions that may bring discredit to the judiciary.

  • Judges should refrain from using their positions for personal publicity or gain.

  • The appropriate penalty for malicious mischief is determined based on the value of the damage caused, either under Article 328 or Article 329 of the Revised Penal Code.

  • The Revised Rule on Summary Procedure governs cases falling within its scope, which includes malicious mischief. Arrest of the accused should only be ordered for failure to appear when required.

  • Preliminary investigation is not required under the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure unless the offense cannot be prosecuted de oficio.

  • The Revised Rule on Summary Procedure aims to promote a more expeditious and inexpensive determination of cases, and to enforce the constitutional rights of litigants to the speedy disposition of cases.

  • Judges are required to observe and apply the law. Gross ignorance of basic law constitutes a violation of a judge's duty.

  • A patently erroneous determination to avoid the application of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure is a ground for disciplinary action, regardless of whether the failure to apply the rule is deliberate or malicious.

  • Judges should act and behave in a manner befitting their office, ensuring that their conduct is above reproach and reaffirming the people's faith in the integrity of the judiciary.

  • Impartiality is essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office. Judges must perform their duties without favor, bias, or prejudice. (Canon 3, Section 1)

  • Judges must avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all their activities, both in and out of court. They should conduct themselves in a way consistent with the dignity of the judicial office. (Canon 4, Section 1 and 2)

  • Judges shall not use or lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance their private interests or convey the impression of improper influence. (Canon 4, Section 8)

  • Judges should not manifest bias or prejudice towards any person or group on irrelevant grounds. They should carry out their duties with appropriate consideration for all persons, without differentiation on any irrelevant ground. (Canon 5, Section 2 and 3)

  • Competence and diligence are prerequisites to the due performance of judicial office. Judges must perform their duties efficiently, fairly, and with reasonable promptness. (Canon 6, Section 5)

  • Judges should maintain order, decorum, and patience during court proceedings. They should be dignified and courteous in their interactions with litigants, witnesses, lawyers, and others. (Canon 6, Section 6)

  • Judges are expected to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

  • Seeking publicity for vanity or self-glorification is incompatible with the standards demanded by the Code of Judicial Conduct.

  • Gross misconduct by a public officer is a transgression of an established rule of action, specifically unlawful behavior or gross negligence.

  • Gross ignorance of the law and gross misconduct are serious charges penalized under Rule 140, Section 11(a) of the Revised Rules of Court.