EXTRA EXCELL INTERNATIONAL PHILIPPINES Vs Hon. Cajical

EXTRA EXCELL INTERNATIONAL PHILIPPINES, INC. V HON. AFABLE E.
CAJIGAL
A.M. No. RTJ-18-2523
June 16, 2018
Facts:
This is an administrative complaint relative to Criminal Case No. R-QZN-13-00488-CR (People of

the Philippines v. Ike R. Katipunan) with respondent as presiding judge.
The complaint alleged that respondent judge showed grossed inefficiency, incompetence, gross
ignorance of the law, grave abuse of authority and evident partiality. Complainant argued that
respondent Judge was guilty (1) of undue delay in resolving motions when he failed to resolve
the motion for issuance of hold departure order within 90-days or despite lapse of 9 months; (2)
gross ignorance of the law when he granted the accused’s motion for preliminary investigation
in violation of A.M. No. 11-6-10-SC since the accused was not a subject of a warrantless arrest
or inquest proceedings; (3) of grave abuse of authority when he allowed the accused to go
home after his arraignment for nonbailable offense; (4) of gross ignorance of the law and
evident partiality in granting the petition for bail despite complainant’s pending motion for
reconsideration and/or motion to set the hearing to another date; and, (5) of evident partiality
when he failed to inhibit himself from further handling the case in view of his bias towards the
accused.
Respondent Judge countered that he should not be sanctioned for acts done in the
performance of his functions as a judge. He claimed that the allegations against him are
unfounded, malicious, and intended solely to harass and embarrass him, and to cause undue
delay in the release of his retirement benefits. In particular, he adverted to A.M. No. 03-10-01-
SC, which bars the filing of an administrative complaint “within 6 months before the compulsory
retirement of a Justice of Judge”. According to responded Judge, the administrative complaint
was filed barely a week before his compulsory retirement on December 29, 2014.
Respondent Judge justified his failure to resolve the motion for issuance of hold departure order
on the fact that the accused had already failed an omnibus motion for the judicial
determination of probable cause, recall of warrant of arrest and deferment of proceedings. He
added that he set for hearing the motion for issuance of hold departure order alongside the
accused’s omnibus motion in order to accord both the prosecution and the defense ample
opportunity to exercise their right to due process.
Furthermore, there was yet no warrant issued for the arrest of the accused.
Moreover, a petition for bail had been filed; hence there was no reason to detain the accused.
With respect to the order granting bail to the accused, respondent Judge claimed that the same
was not at all objected to by the public prosecutor during trial. Respondent Judge claimed that
he enabled the prosecution to finish the presentation of its evidence prior to his impending
retirement; and that said Order was in line with the Constitutional Right of the accused to a
speedy trial.
ISSUES:
Is respondent Judge guilty of gross ignorance of the law and procedure and gross inefficiency?
And is the judge’s failure to recognize a “basic” or “elementary” law or rule of procedure would
automatically warrant a conclusion that he is liable for gross ignorance?
RULING:
The judge’s failure to recognize a “basic” or “elementary” law or rule of procedure would
automatically warrant a conclusion that he is liable for gross ignorance. The respondent Judge is
guilty of gross ignorance of the law and procedure and gross inefficiency.
It is settled that, unless the acts were committed with fraud, dishonesty, malice or ill will, bad
faith or deliberate intent to do injustice, the respondent judge may not be held administratively
liable for gross misconduct, ignorance of the law, or incompetence of official acts in the exercise
of judicial functions and duties, particularly in the adjudication of cases. Moreover, the fact that
a judge failed recognize a “basic” or “elementary” law or rule of procedure would not
automatically warrant a conclusion that he is liable for gross ignorance. What is significant is
whether the subject order, decision, or actuation of the judge unreasonably defeated the
purpose of the law or rule under the consideration and unfairly prejudiced the cause of the
litigants.
Complainant’s motion for inhibition was based on (1) respondent’s failure to resolve the motion
to issue a hold departure order; (2) the grant of preliminary investigation and in view of the
appellate court’s finding of grave abuse of discretion; (3) allowing the accused to go home after
arraignment; and granting bail without the conduct of bail hearing. While three of the four
grounds stated therein are grounds for respondent Judge’s administratively liability, these do
not necessary equate to bias or partiality. Respondent Judge’s reason behind his actuations
seem to be more a disposition to see and report matters as they are wished for rather than as
they are. However, the respondent Judge is guilty of gross ignorance of the law and procedure
in failing to make a judicial determination of probable cause and in failing to conduct a hearing
on the accused’s application for bail in Criminal Case No. R-QZN-13-00488-CR, and gross
inefficiency in failing to resolve complainant’s motion for issuance of a hold departure order.
The Supreme Court took a holistic approach in the present case and accorded compassion and
charity towards respondent judge who appeared to have spent the best years of his professional
life in the Judiciary. More than that, considering respondent Judge’s retirement from the Service
on December 29, 2014, the Court believes that the imposition on a fine in the amount of
P20,000.00 is appropriate and fair. Respondent Judge is found guilty of ignorance of the law and
procedure and gross inefficiency and hereby ordered to pay a fine P20,000.00 to be deducted
from his retirement benefits.

EXTRA EXCELL INTERNATIONAL PHILIPPINES Vs Hon. Cajical

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EXTRA EXCELL INTERNATIONAL PHILIPPINES Vs Hon. Cajical

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

EXTRA EXCELL INTERNATIONAL PHILIPPINES Vs Hon. Cajical

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EXTRA EXCELL INTERNATIONAL PHILIPPINES, INC. V HON. AFABLE E.

This is an administrative complaint relative to Criminal Case No. R-QZN-13-00488-CR (People of

You might also like