Mondejar v. Buban
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Bernadette Mondejar charged respondent Judge Marino S. Buban with gross ignorance of the law, partiality, serious irregularity, and grave misconduct. The charge stemmed from the issuance of a "hold departure order" against her in Criminal Case No. 98-07-CR-133, for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22), an offense within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC). Complainant alleged that the order violated Supreme Court Circular No. 39-97, which restricts the issuance of such orders to criminal cases within the exclusive jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts (RTCs), and that she was denied an opportunity to be heard. Procedural History: Respondent judge admitted issuing the order due to his unawareness of Supreme Court Circular No. 39-97, claiming he was not furnished a copy. He subsequently issued an order lifting the hold departure order on April 14, 1997. Regarding the due process claim, the judge asserted that the complainant and her counsel were notified of the hearing but failed to appear. The Petition: The Court Administrator, finding that the respondent judge erred in issuing the hold departure order, recommended a severe reprimand with a stern warning against repetition.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent judge committed gross ignorance of the law and grave misconduct in issuing a hold departure order in a case falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court. Whether respondent judge denied complainant due process.
Ruling
The Supreme Court adopted the recommendation of the Court Administrator. Judge Marino S. Buban is hereby REPRIMANDED with the warning that a repetition of the same and similar acts in the future will be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of issuing a hold departure order in a case within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Trial Court: The Court held that respondent judge erred in issuing the hold departure order. Supreme Court Circular No. 39-97 explicitly states that "hold-departure orders shall be issued only in criminal cases within the exclusive jurisdiction of the regional trial courts." Criminal cases within the exclusive jurisdiction of first-level courts, such as violations of BP 22, do not fall within the ambit of this circular. Therefore, the issuance of such an order by the respondent judge was a clear violation of the circular. The Court emphasized that judges are exhorted by Canon 3, Rule 3.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct to be "faithful to the law and maintain professional competence." The Court Administrator's finding that the respondent judge erred in issuing the assailed order was well-taken. The respondent judge's claim of ignorance of the circular was not an excuse, as it had been circularized in 1997 and its violation had been dealt with in numerous cases. Judges are expected to be vigilant in keeping abreast with legal developments. On the issue of denial of due process: The respondent judge averred that the complainant and her counsel were duly notified of the scheduled hearing but neither appeared on said date. While the Court found the judge's issuance of the hold departure order to be erroneous, the specific facts presented regarding the denial of due process were addressed by the respondent judge's explanation of notification and non-appearance. However, the primary focus of the administrative case and the Court's resolution was the erroneous issuance of the hold departure order, which constituted gross ignorance of the law.
Main Doctrine
A judge commits gross ignorance of the law and violates Supreme Court Circular No. 39-97 by issuing a hold departure order in a criminal case within the exclusive jurisdiction of first-level courts, as such orders are limited to cases within the exclusive jurisdiction of Regional Trial Courts.