Case Digest: PROV. PROSECUTOR DORENTINO Z. FLORESTA v. JUDGE ELIODORO G. UBIADAS

PROV. PROSECUTOR DORENTINO Z. FLORESTA v. JUDGE ELIODORO G. UBIADAS

A.M. No. RTJ-03-1774, 27 May 2004

Judges owe it the public and the legal profession to know the very law they are supposed to apply to a given controversy.

Then Provincial Prosecutor, now Regional Trial Court Judge Dorentino Z. Floresta administratively charged Judge Eliodoro G. Ubiadas of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) with gross ignorance of the law, grave abuse of authority and violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct in hearing and deciding several cases.

Judge Floresta faults Judge Ubiadas for dismissing a criminal case for illegal entry, for lack of jurisdiction. Complainant likewise faults Judge Ubiadas for failure to resolve, as he has yet to resolve, the Motion for Reconsideration and/or Clarification of the Order dismissing said criminal case, despite the lapse of more than two years since the filing of the motion. By such failure, he charges Judge Ubiadas with violation of Canon 3, Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which enjoins judges to dispose of the court’s business promptly and decide cases within the required periods, and of SC Circular No. 13 (July 1, 1987) which requires lower courts to resolve cases or matters before them within three months or ninety days from date of submission.

Judge Floresta furthermore faults Judge Ubiadas for granting, “without giving notice to the prosecution,” the petition for bail of Jose Mangohig, Jr. who was arrested by virtue of a warrant issued by the Municipal Trial Court of Subic, Zambales which found probable cause against him for violation of Section 5(b), Art. III of Republic Act No. 7610 (“Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act”). Finally, he faults Judge Ubiadas for disqualifying petitioner judge from appearing in a criminal case despite petitioner judge’s designation to handle the prosecution of the case by the Ombudsman.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Judge Ubiadas acted with gross ignorance of the law, grave abuse of authority and violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct in hearing and deciding cases

HELD:

Judge Eliodoro G. Ubiadas is found GUILTY of undue delay in resolving a motion and of gross ignorance of the law or procedure in granting an application for bail without affording the prosecution due process.

On innumerable occasions this Court has impressed upon judges that, as mandated by the Code of Judicial Conduct, they owe it to the public and the legal profession to know the very law they are supposed to apply to a given controversy. They are called upon to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with statutes and procedural rules, to be conversant with the basic law, and to maintain the desired professional competence.

The propriety of the dismissal, on motion of the accused, on jurisdictional grounds is, however, a matter for judicial adjudication and the proper recourse of a party aggrieved by the decision of a judge is to appeal to the proper court, not file an administrative complaint.

However, having failed to resolve the Motion for Reconsideration, Judge Ubiadas is liable for undue delay in rendering a decision or order which is a less serious charge under Section 9 of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court.

The Court takes the occasion to reiterate the injunction that a judge is called upon to balance the interests of the accused who is entitled to the presumption of innocence until his guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt, and to enable him to prepare his defense without being subject to punishment prior to conviction, against the right of the State to protect the people and the peace of the community from dangerous elements.

In the exercise of his power to investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public officer or employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient, the Ombudsman is authorized to call on prosecutors or lawyers in the government service for assistance.

Judge Ubiadas was not only aware of complainant’s designation, hence, belying his explanation that he must have overlooked the same. It also shows his ignorance of the provision of the Ombudsman Act which does not require the presence of a special reason for the designation or deputization by the Ombudsman of any prosecutor or government lawyer to assist him.