Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 73 views

    Torres Vs Masamayor

    Uploaded by

    mcris101
    1) Complainants were charged with sedition and filed a motion for judicial determination of probable cause before respondent judge. However, the judge had already issued a warrant for the complainants' arrest dated July 5, 2006, before finding probable cause on July 10, 2006. 2) While the judge dismissed the charges of grave abuse and misconduct, she failed to properly supervise court personnel who erroneously dated the arrest warrant. 3) The judge is admonished to more closely supervise personnel and sign orders carefully. Repetition of similar incidents could result in a severe penalty.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Torres Vs Masamayor

    Uploaded by

    mcris101
    73 views1 page
    1) Complainants were charged with sedition and filed a motion for judicial determination of probable cause before respondent judge. However, the judge had already issued a warrant for the complainants' arrest dated July 5, 2006, before finding probable cause on July 10, 2006. 2) While the judge dismissed the charges of grave abuse and misconduct, she failed to properly supervise court personnel who erroneously dated the arrest warrant. 3) The judge is admonished to more closely supervise personnel and sign orders carefully. Repetition of similar incidents could result in a severe penalty.

    Original Description:

    TORRES VS MASAMAYOR

    Original Title

    Torres vs Masamayor

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Complainants were charged with sedition and filed a motion for judicial determination of probable cause before respondent judge. However, the judge had already issued a warrant for the complainants' arrest dated July 5, 2006, before finding probable cause on July 10, 2006. 2) While the judge dismissed the charges of grave abuse and misconduct, she failed to properly supervise court personnel who erroneously dated the arrest warrant. 3) The judge is admonished to more closely supervise personnel and sign orders carefully. Repetition of similar incidents could result in a severe penalty.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    73 views1 page

    Torres Vs Masamayor

    Uploaded by

    mcris101
    1) Complainants were charged with sedition and filed a motion for judicial determination of probable cause before respondent judge. However, the judge had already issued a warrant for the complainants' arrest dated July 5, 2006, before finding probable cause on July 10, 2006. 2) While the judge dismissed the charges of grave abuse and misconduct, she failed to properly supervise court personnel who erroneously dated the arrest warrant. 3) The judge is admonished to more closely supervise personnel and sign orders carefully. Repetition of similar incidents could result in a severe penalty.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    TORRES V.

    MASAMAYOR
    A.M. No. RTJ-07-2037
    June 30, 2008

    Complainants:
    ATTY. NORITO E. TORRES, ATTY. EPIFANIO G. BOLANDO, GERONIMO MEJIAS, OSMUNDO FLORES,
    AMADOR LABASTIDA, ELENA ANASCO, ROSABELLA GUDES, ALEJANDRO PAJULERAS, CELSO PETALCORIN,
    CARLITO LOBERTERNOS, DOLORES ESTRADA, PELAR DUPA

    FACTS:
    Complainants were among those charged with sedition before the Regional Trial Court
    (RTC) of Talibon, Bohol, Branch 52, presided by respondent judge.

    On July 10, 2006, complainants' lawyer, Atty. Rolindo A. Navarro, informed the
    branch clerk of court, Atty. Maria Cristina P. Tecson that he will immediately file an
    urgent motion for judicial determination of probable cause and to hold in abeyance
    the issuance or service of warrant of arrest. The motion was filed on July 11, 2006
    at 8:10 a.m. When complainant Atty. Epifanio Bolando appeared before the RTC
    on July 14, 2006 to argue the motion, respondent informed him that an order
    finding probable cause and the corresponding warrant of arrest had already been
    issued. Thus, Atty. Bolando obtained from the court a copy of the warrant of arrest.
    The copy he obtained showed that the warrant was issued on July 5, 2006, but the
    Order finding probable cause was dated July 10, 2006.
    Complainants argue that respondent's issuance of the warrant for their arrest five
    days before she found probable cause constitutes grave abuse of authority and
    gross ignorance of the law, and shows respondent's bias and bad faith. They also
    allege that respondent acted with questionable haste in finding probable cause on
    July 10, 2006 although she knew that Atty. Navarro would file a motion to seek
    judicial determination of probable cause. Complainants point out that respondent
    released the order finding probable cause at 4:00 p.m. on July 11, 2006 even
    though the motion was already filed as of 8:10 a.m.
    Respondent maintains that the warrant of arrest was prepared on July 10, 2006.
    In fact, the Philippine National Police (PNP) of Inabanga, Bohol and Tagbilaran
    City certified that they received the warrant of arrest dated July 10, 2006. She
    explains that the erroneously dated warrant came about because the clerk/typist
    "forgot to change the date of the format-warrant earlier entered into the word
    processor." Upon discovery of the error, the erroneous warrant was "relegated to
    the scratch paper bin." The clerk/typist, unfortunately, gave it to Atty. Bolando
    thinking that it was an extra copy since it was already signed.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not respondent judge is guilty of grave abuse of authority, gross
    ignorance of the law, grave misconduct, obvious bias and partiality, and gross
    violation of Republic Act No. 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
    RULING:
    The charges of grave abuse of authority, gross ignorance of the law, grave
    misconduct, obvious bias and partiality, and gross violation of Rep. Act No. 3019
    against respondent are dismissed for lack of factual and legal basis. However, the
    court affirmed the decision OCA that, respondent failed to properly observe Rule
    3.09, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The rule provides that "a judge
    should organize and supervise the court personnel to ensure the prompt and
    efficient dispatch of business, and require at all times the observance of high
    standards of public service and fidelity." Efficient court management is a judge's
    responsibility. A judge is ultimately responsible for ensuring that court personnel
    perform their tasks and that the parties are promptly notified of his orders and
    decisions.
    In this particular instance, respondent was wanting in her duty to supervise
    properly her personnel. She likewise failed to ensure that her court personnel
    perform their tasks as they should. And she was not careful at all in signing the
    erroneously dated warrant of arrest. That the error was not respondent's direct
    error but of the clerk/typist cannot exculpate respondent from a finding of an
    administrative lapse on her part. Respondent judge cannot take refuge behind the
    mistakes and inefficiency of her court personnel.
    In Joaquin Vda. de Agregado v. Bellosillo, we admonished the respondent therein
    for failure to observe the care and diligence required of him in the performance of
    his duties as a judge. Considering that respondent is similarly liable merely for
    inadvertence, and considering further that respondent acted without any intent to
    do wrong, this Court finds a similar admonition appropriate.
    PENALTY:
    Complaint is DISMISSED for lack of sufficient basis. However, respondent Judge
    Irma Zita V. Masamayor, presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court of Talibon,
    Bohol, Branch 52, is ADMONISHED to be careful in signing orders, to be more
    efficient in the performance of her duty, and to closely supervise her personnel.
    Repetition of the same or similar incidents shall merit a more severe penalty.

    You might also like