Re: Hold Departure Order Issued in Criminal Case No. 2735
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Office of the Court Administrator received an indorsement from the Bureau of Immigration concerning a hold departure order issued by Acting Presiding Judge Alipio M. Aragon of the Third Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Tumauini-Delfin Albano, Isabela, in Criminal Case No. 2735. Procedural History: Respondent Judge Aragon, when required to comment, explained that he was withdrawing the order in view of Circular No. 39-97 and a resolution in A.M. No. 99-8-108-MCTC, which he apparently learned of after reading the PHILJA Bulletin. The Court Administrator recommended that the matter be redocketed as an administrative complaint and that the respondent judge be reprimanded for violating Circular No. 39-97. The Petition: This administrative matter concerns the issuance of a hold departure order by a Municipal Circuit Trial Court judge, which is allegedly beyond the authority granted to such courts by existing circulars and jurisprudence.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Judge Alipio M. Aragon violated Circular No. 39-97 and the Code of Judicial Conduct by issuing a hold departure order. Whether the withdrawal of the hold departure order mitigates the respondent judge's liability.
Ruling
The Court resolved to redocket the matter as an administrative complaint against respondent Alipio M. Aragon, Acting Presiding Judge of the Third Municipal Trial Court of Tumauini-Delfin Albano, Isabela, and to reprimand him for violation of Circular No. 39-97 with a warning that repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely. Judge Aragon is advised to be diligent in keeping himself abreast with developments in law and jurisprudence.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether respondent Judge Alipio M. Aragon violated Circular No. 39-97 and the Code of Judicial Conduct by issuing a hold departure order: The Court found that respondent judge's issuance of a hold departure order was a violation of Circular No. 39-97. This circular limits the authority to issue hold departure orders to Regional Trial Courts in criminal cases within their exclusive jurisdiction. The Court noted that this circular was not a recent issuance and that as early as 1998, a judge had been reprimanded for a similar violation. Respondent judge's unawareness of the circular and relevant decisions indicated a failure to live up to the Code of Judicial Conduct, which enjoins judges to be faithful to the law and to maintain professional competence. The Court emphasized that only through diligent efforts in keeping abreast of developments in the legal system can a judge fulfill his judicial duties. The issuance of the order by a Municipal Circuit Trial Court judge, which is not vested with the authority to issue such orders, constitutes a clear breach of established rules and jurisprudence. On whether the withdrawal of the hold departure order mitigates the respondent judge's liability: The Court held that the withdrawal of the subject hold departure order could not mitigate the respondent judge's liability. The violation had already occurred upon the issuance of the order. The Court Administrator's report recommended a reprimand, a penalty that had been consistently imposed in several previous cases involving similar violations. Therefore, the withdrawal, while perhaps an attempt to rectify the error, did not erase the initial transgression and the consequent administrative liability.
Main Doctrine
Judges are enjoined to be faithful to the law and to maintain professional competence by diligently keeping abreast of developments in our legal system, including circulars and issuances of the Court. Failure to do so constitutes a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.