Case Digest: Cervantes v. Judge Pangilinan

LANIE CERVANTES v. JUDGE HERIBERTO M. PANGILINAN and CLERK OF COURT III CARMENCHITA P. BALOCO, both of MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, CUYO-AGUTAYA-MAGSAYSAY, PALAWAN

594 SCRA 520 (2009), SECOND DIVISION

Respondent Judge Heriberto M. Pangilinan issued a warrant of arrest in a criminal case for Slander against the petitioner Lannie Cervantes (Cervantes) who subsequently posted bail. On arraignment, Cervantes pleaded not guilty. She later filed a Motion to Admit Counter-Affidavit with her Ganting Salaysay (Motion). Respondent Clerk of Court Carmenchita P. Baloco (Baloco) however refused to accept the Motion in the absence of Judge Pangilinan, being apprehensive that he might scold her. As instructed by Baloco, Cervantes returned but was told by the former not to see the judge that day as he was still tired from his trip. The following day, Judge Pangilinan advised Cervantes that he could not accept her belatedly filed Motion because she had already been arraigned. Cervantes then filed a complaint with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).

Baloco explained that she refused to receive the Motion because there was no proper proof of service, but she advised Cervantes to serve a copy thereof on the Chief of Police, the designated prosecutor. Judge Pangilinan justified the non-receipt of Cervantes‘ motion for lack of proper proof of service, and alleged that Cervantes, instead of heeding the advice to comply therewith, went to Puerto Princesa City to air her grievance over a local radio station.

The OCA thus recommended that the case be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter and that Judge Pangilinan be fined in the amount equivalent to one-half of his monthly salary, with stern warning that repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely, and that the complaint against Baloco be dismissed but with admonition for her to be more circumspect in dealing with litigants.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Judge Pangilinan and Baloco committed gross ignorance of the law

HELD:

Instead of first ruling whether the case fell under the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, Judge Pangilinan immediately issued a warrant of arrest and fixed complainant‘s bail at P2, 000. There being no showing that Cervantes failed to appear in court when required by Judge Pangilinan, the warrant of arrest he issued had no legal basis.

In Agunday v. Judge Tresvalles, the Court noted that the requirement to post bail is no longer necessary under the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. Further, in Martinez, Sr. v. Judge Paguio, the Court observed that under Republic Act No. 6036, bail is not generally required for violation of municipal or city ordinances, and for criminal offenses when the prescribed penalty is not higher than arresto mayor or fine of P2,000 or both, as in the case for Slander against Cervantes which is covered by Art. 358 of the Revised Penal Code.