You are on page 1of 27

A.M.No.MTJ071666.September5,2012.

*
(FormerlyA.M.OCAI.P.I.No.051761MTJ)
GERLIE M. UY and MA. CONSOLACION T. BASCUG,
complainants,vs. JUDGE ERWIN B. JAVELLANA, MUNICIPAL
TRIAL COURT, LA CASTELLANA, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL,
respondent.

CriminalLawMaliciousMischiefThecrimeofmaliciousmischiefis
committedbyanypersonwhodeliberatelycausesdamagetothepropertyof
another through means not constituting arson.The crime of malicious
mischiefiscommittedbyanypersonwhodeliberatelycausesdamagetothe
property of another through means not constituting arson. There are special
casesofmaliciousmischiefwhicharespecificallycoveredbyArticle328of
the Revised Penal Code, which provides: ART. 328. Special cases of
malicious mischief.Any person who shall cause damage to obstruct the
performance of public functions, or using any poisonous or corrosive
substance or spreading any infection or contagion among cattle or who
causesdamagetothepropertyoftheNationalMuseumorNationalLibrary,
or to any archive or registry, waterworks, road, promenade, or any other
thing used in common by the public, shall be punished: 1. By prision
correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of the
damage caused exceeds 1,000 pesos 2. By arresto mayor, if such value
does not exceed the abovementioned amount but is over 200 pesos and 3.
Byarrestomenor,ifsuchvaluedoesnotexceed200pesos.
Criminal Procedure Arrests The court shall not order the arrest of
the accused except for failure to appear whenever required.Judge
Javellanas issuance of a Warrant of Arrest for the accused in People v.
Cornelio, is in violation of Section 16 of the Revised Rule on Summary
Procedure,categoricallystatingthat[t]hecourtshallnotorderthearrestof
theaccusedexceptforfailuretoappearwheneverrequired.JudgeJavellana
never claimed that the accused failed to appear at any hearing. His
justification that the accused was wanted for the crime of attempted
homicide,

_______________

*FIRSTDIVISION.

14
14 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Uyvs.Javellana

being tried in another case, Crim. Case No. 04096, is totally unacceptable
and further indicative of his ignorance of law. People v. Cornelio, pending
before Judge Javellanas court as Crim. Case No. 04097, is for malicious
mischief,andisdistinctandseparatefromCrim.CaseNo.04096,whichis
for attempted homicide, although both cases involved the same accused.
Proceedingsinonecase,suchastheissuanceofawarrantofarrest,should
notbeextendedormadeapplicabletotheother.
SamePreliminaryInvestigationRevisedRuleonSummaryProcedure
TheRevisedRuleonSummaryProceduredoesnotprovideforapreliminary
investigation prior to the filing of a criminal case under said Rule.The
Revised Rule on Summary Procedure does not provide for a preliminary
investigation prior to the filing of a criminal case under said Rule. A
criminal case within the scope of the Rule shall be commenced in the
followingmanner:SEC.11.Howcommenced.Thefilingofcriminalcases
falling within the scope of this Rule shall be either by complaint or by
information Provided, however, That in Metropolitan Manila and in
Chartered Cities, such cases shall be commenced only by information,
except when the offense cannot be prosecuted de oficio. The complaint or
informationshallbeaccompaniedbytheaffidavitsofthecomplainantandof
his witnesses in such number of copies as there are accused plus two (2)
copies for the courts files. If this requirement is not complied with within
five(5)daysfromdateoffiling,thecasemaybedismissed.
Same Same Section 1, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedureonlyrequiresthatapreliminaryinvestigationbeconductedbefore
the filing of a complaint or information for an offense where the penalty
prescribedbylawisatleastfour(4)years,two(2)monthsandone(1)day
without regard to the fine.Section 1, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure only requires that a preliminary investigation be
conducted before the filing of a complaint or information for an offense
where the penalty prescribed by law is at least four (4) years, two (2)
monthsandone(1)daywithoutregardtothefine.Ashasbeenpreviously
established herein, the maximum penalty imposable for malicious mischief
inPeoplev.Lopez,etal.isjustsix(6)months.
Same Revised Rule on Summary Procedure The Revised Rule on
SummaryProcedurewaspreciselyadoptedtopromoteamore

15

VOL.680,SEPTEMBER5,2012 15

Uyvs.Javellana
expeditious and inexpensive determination of cases, and to enforce the
constitutional rights of litigants to the speedy disposition of cases.Judge
Javellana did not provide any reason as to why he needed to conduct a
preliminary investigation in People v. Lopez, et al. We stress that the
Revised Rule on Summary Procedure was precisely adopted to promote a
moreexpeditiousandinexpensivedeterminationofcases,andtoenforcethe
constitutional rights of litigants to the speedy disposition of cases. Judge
Javellanacannotbeallowedtoarbitrarilyconductproceedingsbeyondthose
specificallylaiddownbytheRevisedRuleonSummaryProcedure,thereby
lengtheningordelayingtheresolutionofthecase,anddefeatingtheexpress
purposeofsaidRule.
Same Barangay Conciliation A case which has not been previously
referred to the Lupong Tagapamayapa shall be dismissed without
prejudice.We see no ambiguity in the aforequoted provisions. A case
which has not been previously referred to the LupongTagapamayapa shall
bedismissedwithoutprejudice.Amotiontodismissonthegroundoffailure
to comply with the Lupon requirement is an exception to the pleadings
prohibited by the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. Given the express
provisions of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, we find irrelevant
Judge Javellanas argument that referral to the Lupon is not a jurisdictional
requirement. The following facts are undisputed: People v. Celeste, et al.
was not referred to the Lupon, and the accused filed a Motion to Dismiss
based on this ground. Judge Javellana should have allowed and granted the
MotiontoDismiss(albeitwithoutprejudice)filedbytheaccusedinPeople
v.Celeste,etal.
Administrative Law Judges Gross Ignorance of the Law When the
lawissufficientlybasic,ajudgeowesittohisofficetosimplyapplyitand
anything less than that would be constitutive of gross ignorance of the
law.Every judge is required to observe the law. When the law is
sufficiently basic, a judge owes it to his office to simply apply it and
anything less than that would be constitutive of gross ignorance of the law.
In short, when the law is so elementary, not to be aware of it constitutes
grossignoranceofthelaw.
Same Same Even no longer explicitly stated in the New Code of
Judicial Conduct, judges are still proscribed from engaging in self
promotionandindulgingtheirvanityandpridebyCanons1(on

16

16 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Uyvs.Javellana

Integrity) and 2 (on Propriety) of the New Code.The previous Code of


JudicialConductspecificallywarnedthejudgesagainstseekingpublicityfor
personal vainglory. Vainglory, in its ordinary meaning, refers to an
individuals excessive or ostentatious pride especially in ones own
achievements. Even no longer explicitly stated in the New Code of Judicial
Conduct, judges are still proscribed from engaging in selfpromotion and
indulging their vanity and pride by Canons 1 (on Integrity) and 2 (on
Propriety)oftheNewCode.
Same Same Gross Misconduct Words and Phrases The Supreme
Courtdefinedgrossmisconductasatransgressionofsomeestablishedand
definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross
negligence by the public officer.For his violations of the New Code of
Professional Conduct, Judge Javellana committed gross misconduct. We
have defined gross misconduct as a transgression of some established and
definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross
negligencebythepublicofficer.
Same Same Code of Judicial Conduct Gross Ignorance of the Law
Gross Misconduct Penalties Gross ignorance of the law and gross
misconduct constituting violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct are
classifiedasseriouschargesunderRule140,Section8oftheRevisedRules
of Court, and penalized under Rule 140, Section 11(a) of the same
Rules.Gross ignorance of the law and gross misconduct constituting
violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct are classified as serious charges
under Rule 140, Section 8 of the Revised Rules of Court, and penalized
underRule140,Section11(a)ofthesameRulesby:1)Dismissalfromthe
service,forfeitureofallorpartofthebenefitsastheCourtmaydetermine,
anddisqualificationfromreinstatementorappointmenttoanypublicoffice,
includinggovernmentownedorcontrolledcorporations.Provided,however,
that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave credits
2) Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than
three (3) but not exceeding six (6) months or 3) A fine of more than
P20,000.00butnotexceedingP40,000.00

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court. Gross


Ignorance of the Law and Procedures, Gross Incompetence,
NeglectofDuty,ConductImproperandUnbecomingofaJudge,
GraveMisconductandOthers.

17

VOL.680,SEPTEMBER5,2012 17
Uyvs.Javellana

ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.

LEONARDODECASTRO,J.:
This administrative case arose from a verified complaint1 for
gross ignorance of the law and procedures, gross incompetence,
neglectofduty,conductimproperandunbecomingofajudge,grave
misconduct and others, filed by Public Attorneys Gerlie2 M. Uy
(Uy) and Ma. Consolacion T. Bascug (Bascug) of the Public
Attorneys Office (PAO), La Carlotta District, against Presiding
JudgeErwin3B.Javellana(Javellana)oftheMunicipalTrialCourt
(MTC),LaCastellana,NegrosOccidental.
Public Attorneys Uy and Bascug alleged the following in their
complaint:
First,JudgeJavellanawasgrosslyignorantoftheRevisedRule
on Summary Procedure. Public Attorneys Uy and Bascug cited
several occasions as examples: (a) In Crim. Case No. 04097,
entitledPeoplev.Cornelio,forMaliciousMischief,JudgeJavellana
issuedawarrantofarrestafterthefilingofsaidcasedespiteSection
16 of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure (b) In Crim. Case
No. 04075, entitled People v. Celeste, et al., for Trespass to
Dwelling, Judge Javellana did not grant the motion to dismiss for
noncompliancewiththeLuponrequirementunderSections18and
19(a)oftheRevisedRuleonSummaryProcedure,insistingthatsaid
motion was a prohibited pleading (c) Also in Peoplev.Celeste,et
al., Judge Javellana refused to dismiss outright the complaint even
whenthesamewaspatentlywithoutbasisormerit,astheaffidavits
ofthereincomplainantandherwitnesseswereallhearsayevidence
and(d)InCrim.CaseNo.02056,enti

_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 224 received by the Courts Docket and Clearance Division on
August22,2005.
2GIRLIEinsomepartsoftheRollo.
3EDWINinsomepartsoftheRollo.

18

18 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Uyvs.Javellana

tledPeoplev.Lopez,etal.,forMaliciousMischief,JudgeJavellana
didnotapplytheRevisedRuleonSummaryProcedureand,instead,
conducted a preliminary examination and preliminary investigation
in accordance with the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, then
set the case for arraignment and pretrial, despite confirming that
thereincomplainantandherwitnesseshadnopersonalknowledgeof
thematerialfactsallegedintheiraffidavits,whichshouldhavebeen
agroundfordismissalofsaidcase.
Second, Judge Javellana gave the impression that he was a co
agent in a surety company with a certain Leilani Lani Manunag
(Manunag). Judge Javellana had conveyed to the public on several
occasionsthatManunagwasinaspecialpositiontoinfluencehimin
grantingprovisionallibertytotheaccused.4Indifferentcases,Judge
Javellana(a)instructedthewifeofanaccusedtofiletheMotionto
ReduceBondpreparedbythePAOwithManunag,leadingthewife
tobelievethatManunagwasacourtpersonnel,hence,saidMotion
was never filed with the MTC and, instead of the cash bond the
accusedintendedtopost,theaccusedwasreleasedonasuretybond
issuedbyManunagscompanyforwhichtheaccusedstillhadtopay
premium5 (b) reduced the bail from P40,000.00 to P30,000.00,
consistent with the reduced bail amount Manunag instructed the
representative of the accused to seek, not to P10,000.00 as prayed
forbythePAOintheMotionforReductionofBailortoP20,000.00
asrecommendedbytheChiefofPolice6(c)didnotwarnManunag
against getting involved in court processes as she was engaged in
suretyinsuranceanddidnotevenquestionacounteraffidavitofan
accusedpreparedbyLani7(d)in

_______________
4Rollo,pp.67.
5Id.,atp.7Crim.CaseNo.05030,entitledPeoplev.Mesias.
6Id.,atpp.78Crim.CaseNo.02061,entitledPeoplev.Javier.
7Id.,atpp.89Crim.CaseNo.03097,entitledPeoplev.Bautista.

19

VOL.680,SEPTEMBER5,2012 19
Uyvs.Javellana

structed the relatives of the accused to go to Manunag who knew


howtoprocessanaffidavitofdesistance,andwhensaidrelatives
didapproachManunag,thelatterchargedthemfees8(e)didnotset
theMotiontoReduceBailforhearingbutgrantedthesamebecause
it was filed by the intimate friend of judge who is an agent of
surety and took cognizance of the amount of premium for the
surety bond in determining the amount of bail9 (f) denied the
MotiontoExtendTimetoFileCounterAffidavitforviolationofthe
threeday notice rule, but granted the Motion to Reduce Bail
facilitated by Manunag even when it was filed in violation of the
same rule10 and (g) issued warrants of arrest under questionable
circumstances, more particularly described in the immediately
succeedingparagraph,inwhichcases,thebailbondsoftheaccused
werefacilitatedbyManunag.
Third, Judge Javellana violated Section 6(b), Rule 112 of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and issued warrants of arrest
without propounding searching questions to the complainants and
their witnesses to determine the necessity of placing the accused
under immediate custody. As a result, Judge Javellana issued
warrants of arrest even when the accused had already voluntarily
surrenderedorwhenawarrantlessarresthadbeeneffected.
Fourth,JudgeJavellanafailedtoobservetheconstitutionalrights
of the accused as stated in Section 12(1), Article III of the
Constitution. Judge Javellana set Crim. Case No. 03097, entitled
People v. Bautista,11 for preliminary investigation even when the
accused had no counsel, and proceeded with said investigation
without informing the accused of his rights to remain silent and to
haveacounsel.

_______________
8Id.,atp.9Crim.CaseNo.04097,entitledPeoplev.Cornelio.
9Id.Crim.CaseNo.03108,entitledPeoplev.Panaguiton.
10Id.,atp.10Crim.CaseNo.03011,entitledPeoplev.Bandon.
11Id.,atpp.1213.

20

20 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Uyvs.Javellana

Fifth, Judge Javellana was habitually tardy. The subpoena in


CivilCaseNo.05001,entitledVillanuevav.Regalado,12onlystated
that the hearing would be in the morning, without indicating the
time.JudgeJavellanafailedtoarriveforthepretrialofthecaseset
in the morning of April 14, 2005. Judge Javellana was still a no
showwhenthepretrialwasresetinthemorningofApril15,2005
and May 3, 2005. Finally, anticipating Judge Javellanas tardiness,
thepretrialwasrescheduledat1:30intheafternoonofanotherdate.
Sixth,JudgeJavellanawhimsicallyorinconsistentlyimplemented
laws and rules depending on stature of the parties, persons
accompanying the parties, lawyers of the parties, and his personal
relations with the parties/lawyers. Judge Javellana, in several
cases,13deniedorrefusedtoreceiveMotionsforExtensionofTime
to File CounterAffidavits signed only by the accused, yet in other
cases,14 granted such motions. In another case,15 Judge Javellana
denied the Motion to Extend Time to File CounterAffidavit for
violation of the threeday notice rule, but granted the Motion to
Reduce Bail, which was in violation of the same rule. Judge
Javellanasinconsistentandirregularrulingcouldbeduetothefact
that the former motion was filed by Public Attorney Bascug, with
whomJudgeJavellanahadanaxetogrind,whilethelattermotion
wasfacilitatedbyManunag.
Seventh, Judge Javellana also adopted the mantra that the
litigants are made for the courts instead of courts for the
litigants.InCrim.CaseNo.03104,entitledPeoplev.Fermin, the
accused,assistedbyPublicAttorneyUy,pleadedguiltytothecrime
ofattemptedhomicide.TheaccusedfiledaPetition/Applicationfor
Probation,preparedbythePAObut
_______________
12Id.,atp.13.
13Id., at p. 14 Crim. Case No. 03090, entitled People v. Earnshaw and Crim.
CaseNo.04092,entitledPeoplev.Estubo.
14 Id. People v. Javier People v. Lopez, et al. and Crim. Case No. 05002,
entitledPeoplev.Seguiza.
15Peoplev.Bandon.

21

VOL.680,SEPTEMBER5,2012 21
Uyvs.Javellana

signed only by the accused. Judge Javellana refused to accept said


Petition/Applicationandrequiredthefatheroftheaccusedtoreturn
thePetition/ApplicationallthewayfromtheMTCinLaCastellana
to the PAO in La Carlota, despite the great distance between these
two cities. The PAO already adopted the practice of preparing the
motions for extension of time to file counteraffidavit, motions for
release of minor, or applications for probation, but letting the
accused themselves or their parents (in case the accused were
minors) sign the motions/applications, thus, enabling the PAO to
serveasmanyclientsaspossibledespitethelackoflawyers.Such
practice is not prohibited considering that under Rule 138, Section
34 of the Rules of Court, a party may conduct his litigation in a
municipal court in person, with an aid of an agent or friend
appointedbyhimforthepurposeorwithaidofanattorney.16
Eighth,JudgeJavellanadidnotobservetheproperprocedurein
airing his complaints against public attorneys. Judge Javellana
rebuked the public attorneys in the Orders he issued. In one such
Order,17 Judge Javellana misleadingly stated that Public Attorney
Uy has already express[ed] her desire not to attend todays
hearing, when Public Attorney Uy actually waived her personal
appearance at said hearing as she had to attend the hearing of a
criminalcaseattheMTCofPontevedra.InanotherOrder,18Judge
Javellana reported, prior to confirmation, that the PAO lawyer
refusedtopreparethemotionforextensionoftimetofilecounter
affidavit, thus, prompting the accused to hire a special counsel.
Additionally, Judge Javellana improperly filed his complaints
against the public attorneys appearing before his court with the
Department of Justice or the District Public Attorney (DPA) of
Bacolod City, instead of the appropriate authorities, namely, the
DPAofLaCarlotaCityorthePAO

_______________
16Rollo,pp.1516.
17Id.,atp.148datedApril29,2005,inPeoplev.Mesias.
18Id.,atp.146datedJanuary31,2003,inPeoplev.Bandon.

22

22 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Uyvs.Javellana

Regional Director. Moreover, Judge Javellana had required Public


Attorney Bascug to explain why she allowed the accused in Crim.
Case No. 03090, entitled People v. Earnshaw, to sign the Motion
for Extension of Time to File CounterAffidavits, even when she
was the one who prepared said Motion. Judge Javellana did not
verify first whether it was indeed Public Attorney Bascug who
prepared the Motion in question, thus, violating her right to due
process. Also, Judge Javellana was already encroaching upon the
domainofthePAO.ItistheconcernofthePAOandnotthecourt
[a]s to how the Public Attorneys Office will be managed,
specifically,whatpoliciestouseintheacceptanceofcasesbrought
toitsOffice,howonecouldavailofitslegalservices,atwhatpoint
intimeoneisconsideredaclientofsaidOfficexxx[.]19
Lastly, to support their complaint, Public Attorneys Uy and
Bascug attached a handwritten note20 relating the observations of
ananonymousmemberofJudgeJavellanasstaff,viz.:

[PageOne]
1.Honorable Judge reports to duty at past 11:00 A.M. and hurriedly
conducts preliminary investigations or preliminary examinations after
makingpartylitigantswaitfrom8:00A.M.until11:00A.M.Therehadbeen
occasions when litigants became impatient for waiting for several hours for
the Judges arrival and would leave the court. Judge then would forego the
examination.
2.Judge spends more time conversing in cafeterias than stay in the court.
Litigants who are in a hurry to go home would bring the affidavits to the
cafeteriaforJudgessignature.
3.Most of the time, in Court, in front of litigants as audience and even
whilesolemnizingcivilmarriageJudgewouldkeeprepeatingtheseremarks:
Iamacriminallawyer.

_______________
19Id.,atp.20.
20Id.,atpp.150152Exh.PP.

23

VOL.680,SEPTEMBER5,2012 23
Uyvs.Javellana

IdidnotcomefromtheDARortheCOMELEC.
IamanintelligentJudge.
I am the counsel of the famous GargarLumangyao and Spider Hunter
casesandIhavecausedtheexecutionofCol.Torres.
IamnotundertheMayorortheChiefofPolice.
and other remarks as if he is the only intelligent, credible and qualified
judgeinthewholeworld.
4.Judgetoleratesthenegligenceofdutyofhiscourtutility[w]orker.Said
utility worker never reports to open or close the court he never cleans the
courtroommostofthetimehestaysinhisKaraokebarwhichissomefew
metersawayfromtheMTCofLaCastellana.AsamatteroffacttheMTC
ofLaCastellanaisthedirtiestofallthecourtroomsinthewholeprovince.
[PageTwo]
5.Motion for Extension of Time to File Counter Affidavit in CC 03090
Pp.vs.EfraimEarnshawmadebyAtty.BascugwasdeniedbyJudgeonthe
groundthatitwastheaccusedwhosignedtheMotionandAtty.Bascugwas
orderedtoexplain.Othermotionshadbeendeniedfornotmeetingthe3day
rulebutothersweregranted.
6.MotiontoReduceBailreceivedbycourtonJanuary7,2004wasnotset
for hearing but was ordered granted because it was filed by the intimate
friend of the judge who is an agent of Surety. This did not meet the 3day
ruleCC03108Pp.vs.LowellPanaguitonforHomicide.
[PageThree]
1.Criminal Case No. 03102Julius Villanueva Frustrated Homicide
UrgentMotiontoStayTransfertoProvincialJailFiled1/21/2004wasnot
heardbutorderwasissuedJanuary21,[20]04also.
2.Criminal Case No. 03090Efraim Earnshaw Less Serious Physical
Injuries January 26, 2004 Scheduled for arraignment but upon order of
Judge on affidavit of Desistance of Melanie Pabon and Motion to Dismiss
wasfiledandcasedismissed.
3.Deonaldo Lopez CaseMotion for Extension of Time to File Counter
Affidavitdated10302wassignedbyaccusednamelyDe

24

24 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Uyvs.Javellana

onaldo Lopez, Jojo Balansag, Junnel Jorge, and Bernie Bello granted by
judge.21

Basedontheforegoing,PublicAttorneysUyandBascugprayed
thatJudgeJavellanaberemovedfromtheMTCofLaCastellana.
InhisComment22onthecomplaintagainsthim,JudgeJavellana
discounted the allegations of Public Attorneys Uy and Bascug as
baseless,untruthful,intrigues,maliciousandaharassmenttending
tointimidate[him],andcounteredasfollows:
First,JudgeJavellanaassertedthathewasnotgrosslyignorantof
therulesofprocedureandexplainedhisactionsinparticularcases:
(a)InPeoplev.Cornelio,JudgeJavellanaissuedawarrantofarrest
forthetwoaccusedchargedwithMaliciousMischiefintheexercise
ofhisjudicialdiscretion,andthenecessityofholdingtheaccusedin
detentionbecameevidentwhenitwasrevealedduringtrialthatthe
same accused were wanted for Attempted Homicide in Crim. Case
No.04096(b)InPeoplev.Celeste,etal.,JudgeJavellanainsisted
that referral of the dispute (involving an alleged Trespass to
Dwelling) to the Lupong Tagapamayapa was not a jurisdictional
requirement and the Motion to Dismiss on said ground was a
prohibitedpleadingundertheRevisedRuleonSummaryProcedure
(c) Still in People v. Celeste, et al., Judge Javellana refused to
dismissoutrightthecomplaintasprayedforbyPublicAttorneyUy
as the Judge had to accord due process to the complainant in said
case and (d) In People v. Lopez, et al. another case for Malicious
Mischief, Judge Javellana reiterated that a motion to dismiss is a
prohibitedpleadingundertheRevisedRuleonSummaryProcedure
and added that he could not dismiss the case outright since the
prosecutionhasnotyetfullypresenteditsevidence.

_______________
21Id.
22Id.,atpp.165190receivedbytheOCAonOctober28,2005.

25

VOL.680,SEPTEMBER5,2012 25
Uyvs.Javellana

Second, Judge Javellana denied acting as the coagent of


Manunag. Manunag was an Authorized Surety Bond Agent of
Commonwealth Insurance and Surety Bond Company, a bonding
company duly accredited by the Office of the Court Administrator
(OCA).TherelationshipbetweenJudgeJavellanaandManunagwas
purely on official business. That Manunag influenced Judge
Javellana in fixing the amount of bail in several cases was a
malicious and deliberate lie, based on mere speculation and
suspicion.JudgeJavellanahadconsistentlygrantedthereductionof
the amount of bail to only 75%, and not as low as 25%, of the
amountstatedinDepartmentCircularNo.89datedAugust29,2000
of the Department of Justice (DOJ). Judge Javellana even chided
Public Attorneys Uy and Bascug that as officers of the court, said
public attorneys were duty bound not to demand outrageous
reduction of bail. In addition, Judge Javellana could not warn
Manunag to stay away from the processes (sic) premises in the
CourtbecauseeverybodyareallowedtoattendCourtproceedings
unlessotherwisetheattendanceofthepublicisprohibited.23Judge
Javellana likewise stated that he could not interfere with the
processing of surety insurance and bond for such was a private
matter between the insurance and bonding company and its
authorizedagents.Referringtocaserecords,JudgeJavellanapointed
out that he only granted the motions to reduce bail that complied
withthethreedaynoticerule.
Third, Judge Javellana claimed to have conducted preliminary
examination,askingthecomplainantsandtheirwitnessessearching
questions, before issuing warrants of arrest. According to Judge
Javellana, he would sign the official form of the warrant of arrest
right after the preliminary examination. In some cases, Judge
Javellanawasnotawarethattheaccusedhadalready

_______________
23Id.,atp.173.

26

26 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Uyvs.Javellana

voluntarilysurrenderedorwasalreadytakenintocustodybyvirtue
ofawarrantlessarrestbecausepoliceofficersdidnottimelyinform
thecourtofsuchfact.
Fourth, Judge Javellana did not violate the constitutional rights
of the accused in People v. Bautista. Judge Javellana argued that
whileajudgecanaskclarificatoryquestionsduringthepreliminary
investigation, a preliminary investigation is mandatory only when
thelawimposesthepenaltyofimprisonmentofatleastfouryears,
two months, and one day. Judge Javellana further averred that he
alwaysadvisedlitigantstosecuretheservicesofacounselorthatof
a public attorney from the PAO. However, even when the public
attorneyfailedorrefusedtoappearbeforethecourt,JudgeJavellana
stillproceededwithhisclarificatoryquestionssincetherewasyetno
fullblowntrialforwhichtheaccusedalreadyneededtheservicesof
acompetentlawyer.
Fifth,JudgeJavellanaexplainedhisfailuretoarriveforthepre
trialinVillanuevav.Regalado scheduled on April 14, 2005. Judge
Javellana averred that he had been suffering from diabetes, as
evincedbyhismedicalrecordsfromtheSupremeCourtHealthand
WelfarePlan,andonsaiddate,hisbloodsugarroseto300,which
causedhimtobelethargic,weak,anddrowsy.
Sixth, Judge Javellana repudiated the allegation that he applied
the law and ruled whimsically and inconsistently. Judge Javellana
assertedthatheappliedthelawandtherulesaccordingtowhathe
believes is fair, just and equitable in the exercise of his judicial
discretion.24 Judge Javellana never favored Manunag and in all
criminalcasesinvolvinghomicide,hehadgrantedthereductionof
bailtoP30,000.00(75%oftherecommendedbailofP40,000.00).
Seventh, Judge Javellana admitted not accepting petitions,
applications, and motions prepared by the PAO but signed only by
theaccused,asseveratingthatpublicattorneysshould

_______________
24Id.,atp.178.

27

VOL.680,SEPTEMBER5,2012 27
Uyvs.Javellana

affix their signatures and state their Roll of Attorneys number in


every pleading they file in court. Judge Javellana asked that if all
courtsadmits(sic)anypleadingfiledbyanylitigantthenwhatwill
happentothepracticeoflaw?25
Eighth, Judge Javellana emphasized that government lawyers,
such as Public Attorneys Uy and Bascug, are paid with peoples
money, so they should be sincere and dedicated to their work and,
whenever possible, go the extra mile to serve poor litigants. Thus,
JudgeJavellanareportedPublicAttorneysUyandBascugtohigher
PAOofficialstoguidesaidpublicattorneysandnottointerferewith
theperformanceoftheirfunctions.
And ninth, Judge Javellana identified the member of his staff
whowrotethenotecontainingmoreallegationsagainsthimasMr.
Ray D. Pineda (Pineda), Process Server. Judge Javellana described
Pineda as very abnormal, eccentric and queer in his relationship
withhisfellowstaffasshownbyhisquarrelsomeattitudeandfond
of inciting litigants to criticize the Clerk of Court and other
personnel and most of all his loyalty to the Official of the
Municipality rather than to this Court x x x.26 Judge Javellana
clarified that he often mentioned the GargarLumangyao
Kidnapping with Double Murder Case and the Spider Hunters
MultipleMurderandMultipleFrustratedMurderCasenottoboast
but to relay the impression that he meant business as Presiding
Judge. These cases were dubbed as the Case of the Century by
then Executive Judge Bernardo Ponferrada of the Regional Trial
Court of Bacolod City (who later became Deputy Court
Administrator) because the same involved big time personalities.
Judge Javellana mentioned the said cases even when solemnizing
marriagesbecausehewouldthenbereadingtheHolyScripturesand
hehadtohighlightthathesurvivedthetrialsandthreatstohislife
becauseoftheHolyBible.JudgeJavel

_______________
25Id.,atp.180.
26Id.,atpp.180181.
28

28 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Uyvs.Javellana

lana also did not have a Court Aide who owned a Karaoke Bar
whose negligence the judge was tolerating. Pineda was just
jealous because he was not designated by Judge Javellana as
ActingDocketClerkinlieuofMr.VeeCaballerowhowasalready
on terminal leave prior to retirement. Judge Javellana further
narratedthathehadreprimandedPinedaseveraltimes,eveninopen
court.Inoneoftheseinstances,itwasbecausePinedasubmitteda
falsifiedinformationsheettotheSupremeCourtPersonnelDivision,
stating therein that he had never been charged with a criminal
offense, when in truth, he was previously charged with Physical
Injury.JudgeJavellanaadvisedPinedatorectifythelattersrecords
by executing an affidavit to be submitted to the Supreme Court
PersonnelDivision,butPinedadidnotheedthesame.
Intheend,JudgeJavellanastressedthatthechargesagainsthim
were baseless and malicious and the acts being complained of
involvedjudicialdiscretionand,thus,judicialinnatureandnotthe
proper subject of an administrative complaint. Judge Javellana
hinted about a conspiracy between the Municipal Mayor, on one
hand, and Public Attorneys Uy and Bascug, on the other. The
MunicipalMayorwaspurportedlyangryatJudgeJavellanabecause
the latter caused the arrest of and heard the cases against the
formers supporters and employees while Public Attorney Bascug
was suffering from a Losing Litigants Syndrome and
ProsecutionComplex,andwasinfluencingPublicAttorneyUy,a
neophytelawyer.
Consequently,JudgeJavellanasoughtthedismissaloftheinstant
complaintagainsthim.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), in its report27
dated January 2, 2006, found Judge Javellana liable for gross
ignoranceofthelaworprocedurewhenhedidnotapplytheRevised
RuleonSummaryProcedureincasesappropriatelycoveredbysaid
Ruleand(2)grossmisconductwhenhegot

_______________
27Id.,atpp.307320receivedbytheCourtonJanuary4,2007.

29

VOL.680,SEPTEMBER5,2012 29
Uyvs.Javellana
involved in business relations with Manunag, implemented the law
inconsistently, and mentioned his accomplishments for publicity.
TheOCAthusrecommendedthat:
1.The instant administrative complaint be REDOCKETED as a regular
administrativematterand
2.Judge Edwin B. Javellana, MTC, La Castellana, Negros Occidental be
SUSPENDED from office without salary and other benefits for three (3)
monthswithaSTERNWARNINGthatrepetitionofthesameorsimilaractsin
thefutureshallbedealtwithmoreseverely.28

InaResolution29datedFebruary5,2007,theCourtredocketed
thecomplaintasaregularadministrativematterandrequiredparties
tomanifesttheirwillingnesstosubmitthecaseforresolutiononthe
basisofthepleadingsfiled.
On separate dates,30 the parties manifested their willingness to
submitthecaseforresolutionbasedonthepleadingsalreadyfiled.
WeagreewiththefindingsandconclusionsoftheOCA,except
forthepenaltyimposed.
I
GrossIgnoranceoftheLaw
The Revised Rule of Summary Procedure shall govern the
followingcriminalcases:

SECTION1.Scope.This Rule shall govern the summary procedure


in the Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, the
MunicipalTrialCourts,andtheMunicipal

_______________
28Id.,atpp.319320.
29Id.,atpp.321322.
30Id.,at pp. 323, 325327. Respondent manifested in an undated letter received by the
OCA on March 26, 2007. Complainants manifestation on the other hand was received on
April17,2007.

30

30 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Uyvs.Javellana

CircuitTrialCourtsinthefollowingcasesfallingwithintheirjurisdiction.
xxxx
B.CriminalCases:
(1)Violationsoftrafficlaws,rulesandregulations
(2)Violationsoftherentallaw
(3)Violationsofmunicipalorcityordinances
(4)ViolationsofBatasPambansaBilang22(BouncingChecksLaw).
(5)Allothercriminalcaseswherethepenaltyprescribedbylawfor
theoffensechargedisimprisonmentnotexceedingsixmonths,orafine
notexceeding one thousand pesos (P1,000.00), or both, irrespective of
otherimposablepenalties,accessoryorotherwise,orofthecivilliability
arising therefrom: Provided, however, That in offenses involving
damagetopropertythroughcriminalnegligence,thisRuleshallgovern
where the imposable fine does not exceed ten thousand pesos
(P10,000.00).(Emphasissupplied.)

The cases People v. Cornelio31 and People v. Lopez, et al.32


pendingbeforeJudgeJavellanawerebothformaliciousmischief.
Thecrimeofmaliciousmischiefiscommittedbyanypersonwho
deliberatelycausesdamagetothepropertyofanotherthroughmeans
not constituting arson.33 There are special cases of malicious
mischief which are specifically covered by Article 328 of the
RevisedPenalCode,whichprovides:

ART.328.Specialcasesofmaliciousmischief.Anypersonwhoshall
cause damage to obstruct the performance of public functions, or using any
poisonous or corrosive substance or spreading any infection or contagion
amongcattleorwhocausesdamagetothepropertyoftheNationalMuseum
orNationalLibrary,ortoany

_______________
31Id.,atp.307,CriminalCaseNo.04097.
32Id.,atp.308,CriminalCaseNo.02056.
33RPC,Article327.

31

VOL.680,SEPTEMBER5,2012 31
Uyvs.Javellana

archiveorregistry,waterworks,road,promenade,oranyotherthingusedin
commonbythepublic,shallbepunished:
1.Byprisioncorreccional in its minimum and medium periods, if
thevalueofthedamagecausedexceeds1,000pesos
2.By arresto mayor, if such value does not exceed the above
mentionedamountbutisover200pesosand
3.By arresto menor, if such value does not exceed 200 pesos.
(Emphasisours.)

All other cases of malicious mischief shall be governed by


Article329ofthesameCode,whichreads:

ART.329.Other mischiefs.The mischiefs not included in the next


precedingarticleshallbepunished:
1.By arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods, if the
valueofthedamagecausedexceeds1,000pesos
2.Byarrestomayorinitsminimumandmediumperiods,ifsuchvalue
isover200pesosbutdoesnotexceed1,000pesosand
3.Byarrestomenor or fine of not less than the value of the damage
causedandnotmorethan200pesos,iftheamountinvolveddoesnotexceed
200pesosorcannotbeestimated.(Emphasisours.)

WithoutanyshowingthattheaccusedinPeoplev.Cornelio and
People v. Lopez, et al. were charged with the special cases of
malicious mischief particularly described in Article 328 of the
Revised Penal Code, then Article 329 of the same Code should be
applied.IftheamountsoftheallegeddamagetopropertyinPeople
v.CornelioandPeoplev.Lopez,etal.,P6,000.0034andP3,000.00,35
respectively, are proven, the appropriate penalty for the accused
wouldbearrestomayorinitsmediumandmaximumperiodswhich
under Article 329(a) of the Revised Penal Code, would be
imprisonmentfortwo(2)monthsandone(1)daytosix(6)months.
Clearly,thesetwo

_______________
34Rollo,pp.2533ExhibitsAtoE.
35Id.,atp.43ExhibitsI.

32

32 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Uyvs.Javellana

cases should be governed by the Revised Rule on Summary


Procedure.
JudgeJavellanasissuanceofaWarrantofArrestfortheaccused
in People v. Cornelio is in violation of Section 16 of the Revised
Rule on Summary Procedure, categorically stating that [t]he court
shallnotorderthearrestoftheaccusedexceptforfailuretoappear
wheneverrequired.JudgeJavellananeverclaimedthattheaccused
failedtoappearatanyhearing.Hisjustificationthattheaccusedwas
wantedforthecrimeofattemptedhomicide,beingtriedinanother
case, Crim. Case No. 04096, is totally unacceptable and further
indicative of his ignorance of law. People v. Cornelio, pending
before Judge Javellanas court as Crim. Case No. 04097, is for
maliciousmischief,andisdistinctandseparatefromCrim.CaseNo.
04096, which is for attempted homicide, although both cases
involved the same accused. Proceedings in one case, such as the
issuance of a warrant of arrest, should not be extended or made
applicabletotheother.
In People v. Lopez, et al., Judge Javellana conducted a
preliminary investigation even when it was not required or
justified.36
TheRevisedRuleonSummaryProceduredoesnotprovidefora
preliminaryinvestigationpriortothefilingofacriminalcaseunder
said Rule. A criminal case within the scope of the Rule shall be
commencedinthefollowingmanner:

SEC.11.Howcommenced.Thefilingofcriminalcasesfallingwithin
the scope of this Rule shall be either by complaint or by information
Provided, however, That in Metropolitan Manila and in Chartered Cities,
suchcasesshallbecommencedonlybyinformation,exceptwhentheoffense
cannotbeprosecuteddeoficio.
The complaint or information shall be accompanied by the affidavits of
the complainant and of his witnesses in such number of copies as there are
accusedplustwo(2)copiesforthecourtsfiles.If

_______________
36Id.,atp.50ExhibitJ.

33

VOL.680,SEPTEMBER5,2012 33
Uyvs.Javellana

this requirement is not complied with within five (5) days from date of
filing,thecasemaybedismissed.
SEC.12.DutyofCourt.
(a)Ifcommencedbycomplaint.Onthebasisofthecomplaintandthe
affidavitsandotherevidenceaccompanyingthesame,thecourtmaydismiss
the case outright for being patently without basis or merit and order the
releaseoftheaccusedifincustody.
(b)If commenced by information.When the case is commenced by
information,or is not dismissed pursuant to the next preceding paragraph,
the court shall issue an order which, together with copies of the affidavits
andotherevidencesubmittedbytheprosecution,shallrequiretheaccusedto
submithiscounteraffidavitandtheaffidavitsofhiswitnessesaswellasany
evidence in his behalf, serving copies thereof on the complainant or
prosecutor not later than ten (10) days from receipt of said order. The
prosecutionmayfilereplyaffidavitswithinten(10)daysafterreceiptofthe
counteraffidavitsofthedefense.
SEC. 13.Arraignment and trial.Should the court, upon a
considerationofthecomplaintorinformationandtheaffidavitssubmittedby
bothparties, find no cause or ground to hold the accused for trial, it shall
order the dismissal of the case otherwise, the court shall set the case for
arraignmentandtrial.
If the accused is in custody for the crime charged, he shall be
immediatelyarraignedandifheentersapleaofguilty,heshallforthwithbe
sentenced.

Section1,Rule112oftheRevisedRulesofCriminalProcedure
only requires that a preliminary investigation be conducted before
the filing of a complaint or information for an offense where the
penaltyprescribedbylawisatleastfour(4)years,two(2)months
andone(1)daywithoutregardtothefine.Ashasbeenpreviously
established herein, the maximum penalty imposable for malicious
mischiefinPeoplev.Lopez,etal.isjustsix(6)months.
JudgeJavellanadidnotprovideanyreasonastowhyheneeded
toconductapreliminaryinvestigationinPeoplev.Lopez,etal.We
stress that the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure was precisely
adoptedtopromoteamoreexpedi

34

34 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Uyvs.Javellana

tious and inexpensive determination of cases, and to enforce the


constitutionalrightsoflitigantstothespeedydispositionofcases.37
JudgeJavellanacannotbeallowedtoarbitrarilyconductproceedings
beyond those specifically laid down by the Revised Rule on
SummaryProcedure,therebylengtheningordelayingtheresolution
ofthecase,anddefeatingtheexpresspurposeofsaidRule.
WefurtheragreewiththeOCAthatJudgeJavellanacommitteda
blatanterrorindenyingtheMotiontoDismissfiledbytheaccused
inPeople v. Celeste, et al. and in insisting that said Motion was a
prohibited pleading, even though the case was never previously
referred to the Lupong Tagapamayapa as required by Sections 18
and19(a)oftheRevisedRuleonSummaryProcedure.
The pertinent provisions of the Revised Rule on Summary
Procedureread:

Sec.18.ReferraltoLupon.CasesrequiringreferraltotheLuponfor
conciliation under the provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1508 where
there is no showing of compliance with such requirement, shall be
dismissed without prejudice, and may be revived only after such
requirementshallhavebeencompliedwith.Thisprovisionshallnotapplyto
criminalcaseswheretheaccusedwasarrestedwithoutawarrant.
Sec.19.Prohibitedpleadingsandmotions.Thefollowingpleadings,
motions,orpetitionsshallnotbeallowedinthecasescoveredbythisRule:
(a) Motion to dismiss the complaint or to quash the complaint or
information except on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject
matter, or failure to comply with the preceding section[.] (Emphases
ours.)

Weseenoambiguityintheaforequotedprovisions.Acasewhich
hasnotbeenpreviouslyreferredtotheLupongTaga

_______________
37Sevilla v. Judge Lindo, A.M. No. MTJ081714, February 9, 2011, 642 SCRA
277,284285.
35

VOL.680,SEPTEMBER5,2012 35
Uyvs.Javellana

pamayapashallbedismissedwithoutprejudice.Amotiontodismiss
onthegroundoffailuretocomplywiththeLuponrequirementisan
exception to the pleadings prohibited by the Revised Rule on
Summary Procedure. Given the express provisions of the Revised
Rule on Summary Procedure, we find irrelevant Judge Javellanas
argument that referral to the Lupon is not a jurisdictional
requirement.Thefollowingfactsareundisputed:Peoplev.Celeste,
etal.wasnotreferredtotheLupon,andtheaccusedfiledaMotion
to Dismiss based on this ground. Judge Javellana should have
allowed and granted the Motion to Dismiss (albeit without
prejudice)filedbytheaccusedinPeoplev.Celeste,etal.
The Revised Rule on Summary Procedure has been in effect
since November 15, 1991. It finds application in a substantial
numberofcivilandcriminalcasespendingbeforeJudgeJavellanas
court.JudgeJavellanacannotclaimtobeunfamiliarwiththesame.
Every judge is required to observe the law. When the law is
sufficientlybasic,ajudgeowesittohisofficetosimplyapplyitand
anything less than that would be constitutive of gross ignorance of
thelaw.Inshort,whenthelawissoelementary,nottobeawareofit
constitutesgrossignoranceofthelaw.38
In Agunday v. Judge Tresvalles,39 we called the attention of
Judge Tresvalles to Section 2 of the Revised Rule on Summary
Procedure which states that a patently erroneous determination to
avoidtheapplicationofthe[Revised]RuleonSummaryProcedure
isagroundfordisciplinaryaction.Wewentonfurthertointerpret
saidprovisionasfollows:

Althoughthesaidprovisionstatesthatpatentlyerroneousdetermination
to avoid the application of the [Revised] Rule on Summary Procedure is a
groundfordisciplinaryaction,theprovision

_______________
38Almojuela,Jr.v.JudgeRingor,479Phil.131,137138435SCRA261,266(2004).
39377Phil.141,153319SCRA134,144(1999).

36

36 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Uyvs.Javellana

cannotbereadasapplicableonlywherethefailuretoapplytheruleis
deliberateormalicious.Otherwise,thepolicyofthelawtoprovideforthe
expeditious and summary disposition of cases covered by it could easily be
frustrated. Hence, requiring judges to make the determination of the
applicabilityoftheruleonsummaryprocedureuponthefilingofthecaseis
the only guaranty that the policy of the law will be fully realized. x x x.40
(Emphasisours.)

Resultantly,JudgeJavellanacannotinvokegoodfaithorlackof
deliberate or malicious intent as a defense. His repeated failure to
apply the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure in cases so
obviously covered by the same is detrimental to the expedient and
efficient administration of justice, for which we hold him
administrativelyliable.
AsforJudgeJavellanasrefusaltodismissPeoplev.Lopez,etal.
and People v. Celeste, et al., however, we exonerate him of the
administrativechargesforthesame.JudgeJavellanaiscorrectthat
the appreciation of evidence is already within his judicial
discretion.41 Any alleged error he might have committed in this
regard is the proper subject of an appeal but not an administrative
complaint. We remind Judge Javellana though to adhere closely to
the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure in hearing and resolving
saidcases.

II
GrossMisconduct
Judges are enjoined by the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the
Philippine Judiciary42 to act and behave, in and out of court, in a manner
befittingtheiroffice,towit:

_______________
40Id.,atpp.153154pp.144145.
41Rollop.315,OCAReport.
42A.M.No.030501SC,April27,2004.

37

VOL.680,SEPTEMBER5,2012 37
Uyvs.Javellana

Canon2
INTEGRITY
Integrityisessentialnotonlytotheproperdischargeofthejudicialoffice
butalsotothepersonaldemeanorofjudges.
SECTION1.Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above
reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable
observer.
SECTION2.The behavior and conduct of judges must reaffirm the
peoples faith in the integrity of the judiciary. Justice must not merely be
donebutmustalsobeseentobedone.
xxxx
Canon3
IMPARTIALITY
Impartiality is essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office. It
applies not only to the decision itself but also to the process by which the
decisionismade.
SECTION1.Judges shall perform their judicial duties without favor,
biasorprejudice.
SECTION2.Judges shall ensure that his or her conduct, both in and
out of court, maintains and enhances the confidence of the public, the legal
professionandlitigantsintheimpartialityofthejudgeandofthejudiciary.
xxxx
Canon4
PROPRIETY
Proprietyandtheappearanceofproprietyareessentialtotheperformance
ofalltheactivitiesofajudge.
SECTION1.Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of
improprietyinalloftheiractivities.
SECTION2.As a subject of constant public scrutiny, judges must
accept personal restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the
ordinarycitizenandshoulddosofreelyandwillingly.In

38

38 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Uyvs.Javellana

particular, judges shall conduct themselves in a way that is consistent


withthedignityofthejudicialoffice.
xxxx
SECTION8.Judges shall not use or lend the prestige of the judicial
officetoadvancetheirprivateinterests,orthoseofamemberoftheirfamily
or of anyone else, nor shall they convey or permit others to convey the
impressionthatanyoneisinaspecialpositionimproperlytoinfluencethem
intheperformanceofjudicialduties.
xxxx
SECTION14.Judgesshallnotknowinglypermitcourtstafforothers
subject to their influence, direction or authority, to ask for, or accept, any
gift,bequest,loanfavorinrelationtoanythingdoneortobedoneoromitted
tobedoneinconnectionwiththeirdutiesorfunctions.
xxxx
Canon5
EQUALITY
Ensuring equality of treatment to all before the courts is essential to the
dueperformanceofthejudicialoffice.
xxxx
SECTION2.Judgesshallnot,intheperformanceofjudicialduties,by
wordsorbyconduct,manifestbiasorprejudicetowardsanypersonorgroup
onirrelevantgrounds.
xxxx
SECTION2.Judgesshallnot,intheperformanceofjudicialduties,by
wordsorconduct,manifestbiasorprejudicetowardsanypersonorgroupon
irrelevantgrounds.
SECTION3.Judges shall carry out judicial duties with appropriate
consideration for all persons, such as the parties, witnesses, lawyers, court
staff and judicial colleagues, without differentiation on any irrelevant
ground,immaterialtotheproperperformanceofsuchduties.
xxxx

39

VOL.680,SEPTEMBER5,2012 39
Uyvs.Javellana

Canon6
COMPETENCEANDDILIGENCE
Competence and diligence are prerequisites to the due performance of
judicialoffice.
xxxx
SECTION5.Judges shall perform all judicial duties, including the
delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly and with reasonable
promptness.
SECTION6.Judges shall maintain order and decorum in all
proceedings before the court and be patient, dignified and courteous in
relation to litigants, witnesses, lawyers and others with whom the judge
deals in an official capacity. Judges shall require similar conduct of legal
representatives,courtstaffandotherssubjecttotheirinfluence,directionor
control.

JudgeJavellanahadviolatedtheaforequotedcanons/standardsin
severalinstances.
JudgeJavellanadidnotadmithavingabusinessrelationshipwith
Manunag,contrarytothefindingoftheOCA.WhatJudgeJavellana
statedinhisCommentwasthathisrelationshipwithManunagwas
purelyonofficialbusiness,sinceManunagwasadulyauthorized
agentofacreditedbondingcompany.Nonetheless,JudgeJavellana,
by referring the accused who appeared before his court directly to
Manunag for processing of the bail bond of said accused, gave the
impression that he favored Manunag and Manunags bonding
company, as well as the reasonable suspicion that he benefitted
financially from such referrals. Judge Javellana should remember
that he must not only avoid impropriety, but the appearance of
improprietyaswell.

40

40 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Uyvs.Javellana

Moreover, Judge Javellana was conspicuously inconsistent in


granting43 or denying44 motions for extension of time to file
pleadings which were signed only by the accused. Judge Javellana
reasoned in his Comment that the PAO lawyers who prepared the
motions should have signed the same as counsels for the accused,
but thisonlyexplained Judge Javellanas denial of said motions. It
did not address why, in other cases, Judge Javellana had granted
similarmotionssignedonlybytheaccused.Withoutanysatisfactory
basis for the difference in his ruling on these motions, Judge
JavellanahadactedarbitrarilytotheprejudiceofthePAOlawyers.
Judge Javellana himself admitted that he often mentioned his
previousaccomplishmentsascounselinbigandcontroversialcases,
claiming that he only did so to impress upon the parties that he
meant business and that he relied greatly upon God to survive the
trialsandthreatstohislife.Wearenotpersuaded.
The previous Code of Judicial Conduct specifically warned the
judgesagainstseekingpublicityforpersonalvainglory.45Vainglory,
in its ordinary meaning, refers to an individuals excessive or
ostentatiousprideespeciallyinonesownachievements.46Evenno
longerexplicitlystatedintheNewCodeofJudicialConduct,judges
are still proscribed from engaging in selfpromotion and indulging
their vanity and pride by Canons 1 (on Integrity) and 2 (on
Propriety)oftheNewCode.
Wehavepreviouslystronglyremindedjudgesinthat:

_______________
43Crim.CaseNos.02061(Peoplev.Javier),02056(Peoplev.Lopez,etal.),and
05002(Peoplev.Seguiza).
44Crim.CaseNos.03090(Peoplev.Earnshaw)and04092(Peoplev.Estubo).
45Rule2.02.
46TheMerriamWebsterDictionaryHomeandOfficeEdition(5thed.[1998]).

41

VOL.680,SEPTEMBER5,2012 41
Uyvs.Javellana

Canon2,Rule2.02oftheCodeofJudicialConductsaysinnouncertain
terms that a judge should not seek publicity for personal vainglory. A
parallelproscription,thistimeforlawyersingeneral,isfoundinRule3.01
oftheCodeofProfessionalResponsibility:alawyershallnotuseorpermit
the use of any false, fraudulent, misleading, deceptive, undignified, self
laudatory or unfair statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal
services. This means that lawyers and judges alike, being limited by the
exactingstandardsoftheirprofession,cannotdebasethesamebyactingasif
ordinary merchants hawking their wares. As succinctly put by a leading
authorityinlegalandjudicialethics,(i)flawyersareprohibitedfromxxx
using or permitting the use of any undignified or selflaudatory statement
regarding their qualifications or legal services (Rule 3.01, Code of
ProfessionalResponsibility),withmorereasonsshouldjudgesbeprohibited
fromseekingpublicityforvanityorselfglorification.Judgesarenotactors
oractressesorpoliticians,whothrivebypublicity.47

Judge Javellanas actuations as described above run counter to


themandatethatjudgesbehaveatalltimesinsuchamannerasto
promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the
judiciary.48 We cannot stress enough that judges are the visible
representationsoflawandjustice.Theyoughttobeembodimentsof
competence, integrity and independence. In particular, municipal
judges are frontline officers in the administration of justice. It is
thereforeessentialthattheyliveuptothehighstandardsdemanded
bytheCodeofJudicialConduct.49
For his violations of the New Code of Professional Conduct,
JudgeJavellanacommittedgrossmisconduct.Wehavedefinedgross
misconductasatransgressionofsomeestab

_______________
47OfficeoftheCourtAdministratorv.JudgeFlorentinoFloro,520Phil.590,615
486SCRA66,8788(2006).
48Office of the Court Administrator v. Sayo, Jr., 431 Phil. 413, 436 381 SCRA
659,679(2002).
49Agundayv.JudgeTresvalles,supranote39atpp.154155pp.145146.

42

42 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Uyvs.Javellana

lished and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful


behaviororgrossnegligencebythepublicofficer.50
There is no sufficient evidence to hold Judge Javellana
administrativelyliablefortheotherchargesagainsthimcontainedin
the complaint. Yet, we call Judge Javellanas attention to several
matters pointed out by the OCA, that if left unchecked, may again
result in another administrative complaint against the judge: (1)
notices of hearing issued by Judge Javellanas court must state the
specifictime,date,andplace51(2)incaseJudgeJavellanaisunable
toattendahearingforanyreason,hemustinformhisClerkofCourt
assoonaspossiblesothatthelattercanalreadycancelthehearing
and spare the parties, counsels, and witnesses from waiting52 and
(3) he must take care in ascertaining the facts and according due
process to the parties concerned before levying charges of
incompetence or indifference against the PAO lawyers appearing
beforehiscourt.53
III
Penalty
54
Gross ignorance of the law and gross misconduct constituting
violationsoftheCodeofJudicialConduct55areclassifiedasserious
charges under Rule 140, Section 8 of the Revised Rules of Court,
andpenalizedunderRule140,Section11(a)ofthesameRulesby:
1)Dismissalfromtheservice,forfeitureofallorpartofthebenefitsastheCourt
may determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any
publicof

_______________

50Almojuela,Jr.v.JudgeRingor,supranote38atp.139

p.267.

51Rollo,p.317,OCAReport.

52Id.

53Id.,atp.318.

54RC,Rule140,Section8(9).

55Id.,Rule140,Section8(3).

43

VOL.680,SEPTEMBER5,2012 43
Uyvs.Javellana

fice, including governmentowned or controlled corporations. Provided,


however, that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave
credits
2)Suspensionfromofficewithoutsalaryandotherbenefitsformorethanthree(3)
butnotexceedingsix(6)monthsor
3)AfineofmorethanP20,000.00butnotexceedingP40,000.00

The OCA recommended that Judge Javellana be suspended


withoutsalaryandbenefitsforthreemonths.Giventhegravityand
number of violations committed by Judge Javellana, we deem it
appropriate to impose suspension without salary and benefits for a
periodofthreemonthsandoneday.
WHEREFORE, Judge Erwin B. Javellana is found GUILTY of
gross ignorance of the law and gross misconduct. He is
SUSPENDED from office without salary and other benefits for a
period of three (3) months and one (1) day with a STERN
WARNING that the repetition of the same or similar acts in the
futureshallbedealtwithmoreseverely.LetacopyofthisDecision
beattachedtohisrecordswiththisCourt.
SOORDERED.

Sereno (C.J., Chairperson), Bersamin, Villarama, Jr. and


Reyes,JJ.,concur.
Judge Erwin B. Javellana suspended from office without salary
and other benefits for three (3) months and one (1) day for gross
ignorance of the law and gross misconduct, with stern warning
againstrepetitionofsimilaracts.

Notes.Noncompliance with conciliation requirement under


the Local Government Code (Republic Act No. 7160) affects the
sufficiency of a partys cause of action and renders the complaint
susceptible to dismissal on the ground of prematurity. (Positos vs.
Chua,609SCRA154[2009])

44

44 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Uyvs.Javellana

Section5,Rule112oftheRulesonCriminalProcedureexplicitly
states that within ten (10) days after the conclusion of the
preliminaryinvestigation,aninvestigatingjudgeshalltransmittothe
provincialorcityprosecutorforappropriateactionherresolutionof
the case together with the records thereof. (Espaol vs. Toledo
Mupas,612SCRA211[2010])

o0o

Copyright2017CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.