Marcos v. Domingo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Pablo Marcos accused City Judge Andres Domingo and Auxiliary City Judge Guillermo Pasion of Laoag City of partiality and bias. The matter was referred to Executive Judge Manuel V. Romillo, Jr. for investigation. Procedural History: Executive Judge Romillo issued an order dismissing the complaint because the complainant, Pablo Marcos, persistently refused to be served with a subpoena to appear for the hearing, to swear to the truth of his complaint, and to testify. The Executive Judge noted that without the complainant's testimony, there was nothing to investigate as the complaint was not under oath. The Petition: The Supreme Court, while noting the dismissal recommendation, did not perfunctorily accept it. It further inquired into the charge that respondent Judge Guillermo Pasion, a relative of a party (Aurora Pasion Arce), and respondent Judge Andres Domingo, who owned the house where the party lived, did not disqualify themselves in a pending case. Both respondents denied the allegations, and Judge Romillo lent credence to their denial. The matter was then referred to the Judicial Consultant, Manuel P. Barcelona.
Issue(s)
Whether the complaint against the respondent judges should be dismissed due to the complainant's persistent refusal to cooperate with the investigation. Whether the respondent judges committed partiality or bias by not disqualifying themselves in a case where one respondent judge was related to a party and the other owned the property where the party resided.
Ruling
The charges against City Judge Andres E. Domingo and former Auxiliary Judge Guillermo Pasion are dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the dismissal of the complaint due to complainant's non-cooperation: The Court affirmed the dismissal of the administrative complaint. It was emphasized that the complainant, Pablo Marcos, persistently refused to accept service of a subpoena and appear at the investigation. This refusal prevented him from swearing to the truth of his allegations and presenting evidence to prove them. The Executive Judge correctly noted that without the complainant's sworn testimony, there was no basis for the investigation, as the complaint itself was not under oath. The Judicial Consultant also viewed the dismissal as warranted under these circumstances, stressing the complainant's conduct. On the alleged partiality and bias: The Court noted that despite the allegation that respondent Judge Guillermo Pasion was a near relative of a party, Aurora Pasion Arce, and that respondent Judge Andres Domingo owned the house where this party lived, both respondents denied these allegations. The investigating judge, Judge Romillo, lent credence to these denials. Given the lack of substantiation and the complainant's failure to pursue the complaint by appearing and testifying, the Court found no sufficient basis to hold the respondent judges liable for partiality or bias. The administrative complaint, therefore, lacked the necessary proof to sustain the charges.
Main Doctrine
A judicial complaint may be dismissed if the complainant persistently refuses to appear and testify, thereby preventing the investigation of the allegations under oath.