Daiz v. Asadon
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Spouses Avelino and Asteria Daiz accused Judge Protasio G. Asadon of evident bias and partiality, abuse of authority, and violation of Supreme Court circulars on punctuality. They alleged that they were charged with Slight Physical Injuries, arrested without being given the right to present controverting evidence via counter-affidavits, and that the judge issued a warrant of arrest with undue haste before leaving his station. They also claimed the judge often arrived late and left early, and that his wife was related to the complainant against them, indicating bias. Procedural History: The respondent judge, in his comment, denied the allegations. He claimed the complainants were about to escape and that he was lenient. He asserted he was in another municipality on the date in question for another case and denied any relationship between his wife and the complainant's daughter-in-law. He also denied violating punctuality rules, explaining his travels were due to orders from superiors. The respondent judge died of pneumonia while the case was pending. The Court Administrator exonerated the late respondent of all charges except abuse of authority, finding he was remiss in applying the law by ordering arrest without requiring counter-affidavits, contrary to the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure. The Court Administrator recommended a fine of P10,000.00 to be deducted from his retirement benefits. The Petition: The complainants filed an Affidavit/Complaint accusing the respondent judge of the aforementioned offenses.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of authority by issuing a warrant of arrest prematurely. Whether the respondent judge exhibited evident bias and partiality. Whether the respondent judge violated Supreme Court circulars on punctuality and observance of office hours.
Ruling
The Supreme Court concurred with the findings and recommendation of the Court Administrator. The late respondent Judge Protasio G. Asadon was cleared of all charges except for abuse of authority, for which a fine of P10,000.00 was imposed, to be deducted from his retirement benefits.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of authority: The respondent judge committed grave abuse of authority when he hastily issued a warrant of arrest against the complainants. His premature issuance of the warrant on the same day the information for slight physical injuries was filed was a gross violation of the summary procedure rule, which requires that the accused be first notified and given an opportunity to file their counter-affidavits and other countervailing evidence. This premature issuance cannot be justified by unsubstantiated information that the spouses would escape. The premature issuance of the warrant caused prejudice to the complainant spouses as they were deprived of their liberty. Judges are not immune from disciplinary action for negligent, abusive, or arbitrary acts in performing their adjudicatory prerogatives. On the issue of evident bias and partiality: The charge of evident bias and partiality was found to be without basis. The complainants alleged a kinship between the respondent judge's wife and the private complainant's daughter-in-law, but they failed to present substantial evidence to substantiate this claim. The respondent judge categorically denied any such relationship. Without any iota of evidence from the complainants to prove otherwise, this charge cannot be sustained. On the issue of violation of Supreme Court circulars on punctuality and observance of office hours: This charge was also unsubstantiated and considered mere hearsay. The complainants' claim that municipal employees stated the judge often arrived late and left early was refuted by the respondent judge. He presented documents, including a Supreme Court En Banc Resolution and an affidavit, explaining his travels to other municipalities were in obedience to orders and designations from his superior officers to hold court sessions and try cases, demonstrating his observance of required work hours in the dispensation of his judicial functions.
Main Doctrine
A judge commits grave abuse of authority when he hastily issues a warrant of arrest against an accused without first giving them an opportunity to file their counter-affidavits and other countervailing evidence, in violation of summary procedure rules.