Re: Hold Departure Order (Nartatez)
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On April 13, 1998, Judge Juan C. Nartatez of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC), Branch 3, Davao City, issued a Hold Departure Order (HDO) in Criminal Case Nos. 68,229-C-98 to 68,231-C-98. The cases involved violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22), otherwise known as the Bouncing Checks Law, against the accused, Eileen Lope. The order was intended to prevent the accused from leaving the country during the pendency of the criminal proceedings. Procedural History: On June 4, 1998, the Secretary of Justice referred the matter to the Court Administrator, noting that the HDO issued by Judge Nartatez violated Supreme Court Circular No. 39-97. The Supreme Court subsequently required Judge Nartatez to comment on the issuance. In his response, the judge admitted to issuing the HDO but pleaded ignorance of Circular No. 39-97, which had been in effect since June 19, 1997. To correct his mistake, the judge issued a subsequent order on August 4, 1998, recalling the HDO. The Petition: This administrative matter stems from the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). The OCA recommended that Judge Nartatez be reprimanded for his failure to keep abreast of Supreme Court circulars. The matter was brought before the Supreme Court En Banc to determine the appropriate administrative sanction for the judge's unauthorized issuance of the HDO and his failure to maintain professional competence.
Issue(s)
Whether Judge Juan C. Nartatez is administratively liable for issuing a Hold Departure Order in violation of Circular No. 39-97.
Ruling
Judge Juan C. Nartatez is hereby REPRIMANDED with WARNING that repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that Judge Nartatez is administratively liable for issuing the Hold Departure Order (HDO) in violation of Circular No. 39-97. The Court clarified that the authority to issue HDOs is not an inherent power of all trial courts but is specifically restricted to Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) in criminal cases within their exclusive jurisdiction. Consequently, Municipal Trial Courts (MTCs) and other first-level courts are devoid of authority to issue such orders, even if the underlying criminal case falls within their jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that under Canon 3, Rule 3.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, judges have an affirmative duty to be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence. This duty necessitates a constant and diligent effort to remain updated on all Supreme Court circulars and jurisprudential shifts. The Court rejected the judge's plea of ignorance, noting that the learning process in law is continuous and that judges must be proactive in their legal education. Although the judge attempted to rectify the error by recalling the HDO, the Court found that a reprimand was necessary to underscore the importance of judicial competence and adherence to procedural rules.
Main Doctrine
The authority to issue Hold Departure Orders (HDOs) is strictly limited to Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) in criminal cases within their exclusive jurisdiction, as mandated by Circular No. 39-97. Judges of first-level courts, such as Municipal Trial Courts (MTCs), do not possess the legal authority to issue such orders, regardless of the nature of the criminal case before them. This rule ensures a uniform procedure and prevents the unauthorized restriction of a person's right to travel. Furthermore, judges are under a continuous obligation to remain updated on Supreme Court issuances and jurisprudential developments to maintain professional competence.