A.M. No. MTJ-12-1804; July 30, 2012
CITY PROSECUTOR ARMANDO P. ABANADO, Complainant, vs. JUDGE ABRAHAM A. BAYONA, Presiding Judge, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 7, Bacolod City, Respondent.

FACTS

This administrative case originated from Criminal Case No. 09-03-16474. Complainant City Prosecutor Armando P. Abanado filed an Information which was raffled to respondent Judge Abraham A. Bayona’s court. To determine probable cause for issuing a warrant of arrest, respondent issued an order requiring the prosecutor to submit additional documents, including the disapproved resolution of the investigating prosecutor, ACP Dennis S. Jarder, who had initially found no probable cause. Complainant complied with other requests but explained that the disapproved Jarder Resolution was not part of the official record per Department of Justice policy and thus could not be submitted.
Respondent insisted on the document’s production, asserting it was essential for his evaluation. He subsequently ordered complainant to show cause why he should not be cited for contempt for non-compliance, set a hearing for contempt charges, and issued subpoenas. This prompted complainant to file a motion for inhibition, alleging bias, and a successful petition for certiorari with a temporary restraining order from the Regional Trial Court to halt the contempt proceedings. Complainant then filed the present administrative complaint against respondent for Gross Ignorance of the Law and/or Procedure and Gross Misconduct.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Bayona is administratively liable for Gross Ignorance of the Law and/or Procedure and Gross Misconduct for insisting on the submission of a disapproved prosecutor’s resolution to determine probable cause and for initiating contempt proceedings against the prosecutor.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable for Gross Ignorance of the Law. The Supreme Court found that respondent displayed a blatant disregard for settled legal procedure. A judge’s determination of probable cause for issuing a warrant of arrest is a personal judicial function. The Court has consistently held that a judge may either: (1) personally evaluate the prosecutor’s report and supporting documents, or (2) if the information is insufficient on its face, require the submission of supporting affidavits. Respondent’s demand for the internal, disapproved resolution of the investigating prosecutor exceeded this scope. The said resolution, having been overturned by the City Prosecutor, was not a part of the official record forwarded to the court. Respondent’s insistence on its production, contrary to established DOJ policy and jurisprudence, constituted ignorance of basic criminal procedure.
Furthermore, his haste in initiating contempt proceedings against the prosecutor for obeying a lawful directive from his superior demonstrated not only ignorance but also undue arrogance and oppression, which falls under Gross Misconduct. His actions unjustly burdened the prosecutor and impeded the efficient administration of justice. The Court emphasized that a judge must be proficient in the law to maintain public confidence in the judiciary. For these infractions, the Court suspended respondent from office for six months without pay, with a stern warning that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.