Dante Vicente Vs. Judge Jose S.

Majaducon
A.M. NO. RTJ-02-1698. June 23, 2005

Narrative of the Case (BAIL)

The complaint against Judge Jose S. Majaducon involved his actions regarding
Evelyn Te, who was serving a sentence for violating Bouncing Checks Law. Te sought
various reliefs, including bail, citing different legal grounds. The court allowed her
release on bail despite her serving a sentence, citing Rule 102, Sec. 14, which only
applies to those restrained due to a criminal charge, not serving a sentence from a
final judgment. This contradicted Rule 114, Section 24, prohibiting bail after a final
judgment, except when probation is sought before commencing the sentence. Te
didn't apply for probation, rendering her ineligible for bail.

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found Judge Majaducon guilty of gross
ignorance of the law and recommended a fine of P20,000. The Supreme Court agreed
with the finding but imposed a P40,000 fine, considering the serious charge and prior
fines in related cases. Despite retirement, the court ordered the deduction from his
retirement benefits due to pending administrative cases.

FACTS:

1. July 21, 2000

- Dante Vicente files a complaint against Judge Jose S. Majaducon, accusing
him of various offenses related to Evelyn Te's case.
2. Series of Events Involving Evelyn Te:
- Te was convicted of B.P. Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law) violations and sentenced
to imprisonment.
- Te seeks clarification on serving sentences successively or simultaneously.
- Trial court clarifies the sentence, reducing it due to humanitarian reasons.
- Te files motions for reconsideration and habeas corpus.
- Trial court grants Te bail despite her serving a final judgment.
3. Media Uproar and Retaliation
- Local media criticizes Judge Majaducon's actions.
- Judge cites a group of journalists for indirect contempt due to a critical article.
4. Judge's Response to Complaint
- Judge defends his decisions, citing discretion, and justifying actions based on legal
reasoning.
5. Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) Report
- OCA confirms the cases forwarded to the Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court returns the cases to the RTC, disagreeing with the trial court's
actions.
6. Findings and Court Decision
- Judge found guilty of gross ignorance of the law.
- Recommended a fine of P20,000.00, but the judge retired before the decision.
7. Penalty Imposition
- Judge retired upon reaching the compulsory age.
 - Imposition of a fine of P40,000.00 deducted from retirement benefits due to pending
administrative cases.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the judge acted properly in granting bail?

RULING:
No.
Rule 102, Sec. 14 pertains to bail provisions for individuals restrained due to criminal
charges, not those serving a sentence from a final judgment. It disallows the writ where
someone is 'suffering imprisonment under lawful judgment.' The certification of cases under
this rule is for instances where the applicant faces a noncapital offense in another court.

Section 24, Rule 114 prohibits bail after a final judgment and when the convict begins
serving a sentence, except if probation is applied for before serving the sentence, which
didn't happen in Te's case. Judge Majaducon's claim of discretion under Section 14, Rule
102 doesn't apply as it's meant for cases where the person seeks habeas corpus due to a
criminal charge, not serving a sentence from a final judgment.