Case Digest: ERLINDA P. VARCAS v. JUDGE RAFAEL P. OROLA, JR., et al.

ERLINDA P. VARCAS v. JUDGE RAFAEL P. OROLA, JR., et al.

483 SCRA 1 (2006), THIRD DIVISION

Erlinda P. Varcas (Varcas) charges Judge Rafael Orola, Jr. (Judge Orola) of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Dao-Ivisan with gross ignorance of the law or procedure.

On evaluation of the case, the Office of the Court Administration (OCA) found Orola guilty of gross ignorance of the law, ordering him to pay a fine in the amount of twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) with stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense in the future shall be dealt with more severely.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Judge Orola is guilty of gross ignorance of the law

HELD:

Orola is indeed guilty of gross ignorance of the law in light of the following discussions.
When an accused fails to appear when required, like during arraignment, Section 21 of Rule 114 of the Rules provides that if the accused fails to appear in person as required, his bail shall be declared forfeited and the bondsmen given thirty (30) days within which to produce their principal and to show cause why no judgment should be rendered against them for the amount of their bail. Within the said period, the bondsmen must produce the body of their principal or give the reason for his non-production and explain why the accused did not appear before the court when first required to do so.

Failing in these two requisites, a judgment shall be rendered against the bondsmen, jointly and severally, for the amount of the bail. The court shall not reduce or otherwise mitigate the liability of the bondsmen, unless the accused has been surrendered or is acquitted.

Orola did not, however, follow the above-quoted rule. Instead, he issued a bench warrant for Varcas‘ arrest and detention, with the requirement that she post a bailbond of P12,000 “for temporary liberty.”

In the present case, Orola did not give Varcas a chance to be heard thereon by himself or counsel. He gave Varcas 10 days from receipt of the order or until January 16, 2004 to comply therewith. Yet Orola issued on January 16, 2004 his questioned order, despite the fact that Varcas had until the afternoon of that day to comply with it. If Varcas had filed via registered mail on January 16, 2004 her explanation in writing but that said explanation had not been received by the court, she certainly did not fail to comply with the January 6, 2004 Order on January 16, 2004, hence, the issuance by Orola of the January 16, 2004 was premature and, therefore, erroneous, to say the least.

By Orola‘s issuance of the questioned Order of January 16, 2004, Varcas was deprived of the opportunity to comment on the charge and to appear and explain her side.