Formaran v. Trabajo-Daray
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: An administrative complaint was filed against Judge Marivic Trabajo-Daray by State Prosecutor Pablo Formaran III, Atty. Felino M. Ganal, and Kanemitsu Yamaoka, alleging patent injustice, partiality, and gross ignorance of the law in her conduct concerning Criminal Case No. 13280 (estafa through falsification of public document) and other cases. In Criminal Case No. 13280, a hold departure order was initially issued against some accused. When the presiding judge inhibited himself, the case was raffled to another branch. The respondent judge, acting as pairing judge during the absence of the presiding judge, issued an order on December 26, 2002, denying a motion for reconsideration to lift a hold departure order but granting an alternative prayer for accused Richard Friend to travel to the United States, subject to conditions. Complainants alleged that this order was issued without proper notice and hearing, and that the respondent judge took advantage of the presiding judge's absence. Procedural History: Complainants filed the administrative complaint detailing alleged irregularities in the respondent judge's handling of Criminal Case No. 13280 and other cases, including Criminal Case No. 16151 (perjury) and Corporate Case No. 1. The respondent judge denied the allegations, asserting she acted within her judicial functions and with due diligence. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) made recommendations, and the Supreme Court referred the case to an Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals for investigation. The investigating Justice found the respondent judge guilty of manifest partiality and bias and recommended a fine. The Supreme Court adopted this finding with a modification in the fine amount. The Petition: The administrative complaint sought disciplinary action against respondent Judge Marivic Trabajo-Daray for alleged patent injustice, partiality, and gross ignorance of the law in her handling of several cases.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent judge committed manifest partiality and gross ignorance of the law in issuing an order allowing an accused to travel abroad despite pending motions and without proper notice and hearing. Whether respondent judge exhibited partiality in Criminal Case No. 16151 by denying the prosecution's extension for a brief while granting a similar motion to the accused, and by rendering a judgment of acquittal despite alleged overwhelming evidence. Whether respondent judge was remiss in her duties and showed partiality in handling Corporate Case No. 1 by allegedly delaying its reactivation and failing to act on motions for inhibition.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found the respondent judge guilty of manifest partiality and bias, reducing the recommended fine to P20,000.00 and issuing a stern warning against repetition.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of manifest partiality and gross ignorance of the law in Criminal Case No. 13280: The Court held that the respondent judge committed a serious offense by granting, without a hearing, two urgent motions to lift a hold departure order and allow accused Richard Friend to travel to the U.S.A. The motions did not comply with Section 4, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court, which requires a notice of hearing for motions that may prejudice the adverse party. A motion without a notice of hearing is considered pro forma, a mere scrap of paper, presenting no question for the court to decide. The Court emphasized that while a judge has discretion to dispense with a hearing for non-prejudicial motions, the motion to allow travel abroad, especially when it brings out new matters, is clearly litigious and requires notification to the adverse party. By failing to do so, the respondent judge violated the basic constitutional principle of due process, constituting gross ignorance of the law. The Court cited Balagtas v. Sarmiento in support of this ruling, noting that the respondent judge's actions violated due process and demonstrated gross ignorance of the law. On the issue of partiality in Criminal Case No. 16151: The Court found that the respondent judge showed manifest partiality and bias. She ignored a pending motion for inhibition filed by complainant Yamaoka and proceeded to render a decision acquitting the accused Kawai. This act became suspect in light of her previous denial of the prosecution's extension to file an appellee's brief while granting a similar motion to the accused. The Court noted that the issue of voluntary inhibition is a matter of conscience, but when a judge's impartiality is questioned, prudence dictates resolving the motion instead of proceeding with the case, which heightens suspicion. The respondent judge's excuse that the motion for inhibition was not stamped "RECEIVED" was found not credible. The Court stressed that a judge must not only be impartial but must also appear to be impartial to promote public confidence in the judiciary. On the issue of failure to resolve motions in Corporate Case No. 1: The Court found that by failing to resolve the motions relative to Corporate Case No. 1, including the motion for reconsideration to reactivate the case and the motion for inhibition, the respondent judge failed in her duty to dispose of court business promptly. This inaction, coupled with the perceived haste in resolving criminal cases favorably to the accused, cast a cloud of suspicion over her actions and eroded public confidence in the judiciary. The Court reiterated that delay in the administration of justice undermines faith in the judiciary. The respondent judge's tendency to delay resolving motions filed by Yamaoka, while acting with dispatch in cases favoring the accused, was deemed too glaring and suspect.
Main Doctrine
A judge's conduct in handling cases, particularly in issuing orders related to hold departure orders and resolving motions, must be free from suspicion of partiality and must adhere strictly to procedural rules, including the requirement of notice and hearing for litigious motions, to uphold due process and public confidence in the judiciary.