Revita v. Rimando
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Theresita O. Revita charged respondent Municipal Judge Sergio F. Rimando with gross ignorance of the law for dismissing a grave slander case filed by her against Lorenzo A. Viñas. The original complaint was filed by a police investigator against Mrs. Viñas for grave slander. Municipal Judge Cornelia U. Costales conducted a preliminary examination and found the offense to be light oral defamation, setting the case for arraignment and trial instead of issuing a warrant of arrest. A motion for reconsideration by the private prosecutor to issue a warrant of arrest was not acted upon by Judge Costales, nor was a bail bond filed by Mrs. Viñas. Judge Costales inhibited himself due to delicadeza. Executive Judge Honorio N. Salvatera designated Judge Sergio F. Rimando to try the case. Procedural History: Judge Rimando, at the instance of the defense, reset the arraignment and hearing. At the arraignment, Mrs. Viñas pleaded not guilty and her counsel orally moved to quash the complaint. The defense was given time to submit a written motion to quash with a memorandum, and the prosecution was given time to file its opposition. The defense's motion to dismiss contended denial of due process, that the imputation was not libelous, and that the complaint did not conform to the prescribed form due to lack of translation. The private prosecutor opposed the motion. Judge Rimando set the motion for oral argument three times, but it was not held, and the motion was submitted for resolution without oral argument. In an order dated April 29, 1976, Judge Rimando dismissed the complaint. The prosecution did not appeal. Complainant Revita filed a complaint against Judge Rimando with the Supreme Court. The Petition: Complainant Revita denounced respondent Judge Rimando for alleged gross ignorance of the law in dismissing the grave slander case.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge erred in dismissing the complaint for grave slander. Whether the respondent judge should have given due course to the motion to dismiss without the fiscal's written conformity. Whether the respondent judge should have resolved the motion to dismiss without hearing oral arguments. Whether the respondent judge was correct in dismissing the complaint based on the alleged non-defamatory nature of the imputation and the lack of translation.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found merit in the complainant's contention that the respondent judge erred in dismissing the complaint. The Court admonished the respondent judge to exercise more prudence and circumspection in the performance of his duties and warned him that appropriate disciplinary action would be taken if he commits any culpable impropriety and neglect. A copy of the decision was ordered to be attached to his personal record.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the respondent judge erred in dismissing the complaint for grave slander: The Court held that the respondent judge erred in dismissing the complaint. The judge predicated his dismissal on the grounds that the imputation "Garampang ka nga babae" was not translated and was not defamatory, likening it to "Putang ina mo." However, the affidavits supporting the complaint contained an English translation of the words, which meant "You flirt and fool around with men," a clearly defamatory statement. Furthermore, by not moving to quash the complaint before arraignment, Mrs. Viñas waived the objection regarding the complaint's form. The respondent judge should not have dismissed the complaint without first hearing the prosecution's evidence, as the offense was within the municipal court's jurisdiction. The dismissal created an impression that the judge was looking for a pretext and did not act with the cold neutrality of an impartial judge. On whether the respondent judge should have given due course to the motion to dismiss without the fiscal's written conformity: The Court stated that this contention is incorrect, as there is no rule requiring the fiscal's conformity to a motion to dismiss or quash. On whether the respondent judge should have resolved the motion to dismiss without hearing oral arguments: The Court found this contention devoid of merit, as the motion was thoroughly argued in writing and was orally argued even before the written motion was filed or at a subsequent hearing. On whether the respondent judge was correct in dismissing the complaint based on the alleged non-defamatory nature of the imputation and the lack of translation: The Court found this reasoning incorrect. While the complaint itself lacked a translation, the supporting affidavits provided one, indicating the defamatory nature of the statement. Moreover, the failure to move to quash before arraignment constituted a waiver of objections to the form of the complaint. The judge's dismissal on these grounds, without hearing evidence, was deemed an error of judgment that suggested a lack of impartiality.
Main Doctrine
A municipal judge may be admonished for gross ignorance of the law or imprudence in dismissing a complaint without sufficient basis, even if the dismissal is ultimately an error of judgment, especially when the dismissal appears to be a pretext to avoid resolving the merits of the case, thereby creating an impression of bias.