A.M. No. 614-MJ. August 29, 1974.
ALEJANDRO VILLEGAS, complainant, vs. MUNICIPAL JUDGE LOURDES V. DIAMA of Ronda, Cebu, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Alejandro Villegas filed an administrative complaint against Municipal Judge Lourdes V. Diama, charging her with gross ignorance of the law and manifest partiality. The charges stemmed from her handling of Civil Case No. 15-R (forcible entry) and Criminal Case No. 258 (slight physical injuries). For the civil case, Villegas alleged the judge dismissed it in December 1965 for the plaintiffs’ “lack of interest” despite their having presented evidence and without furnishing them a copy of the dismissal order. He claimed the delay was due to her failure to calendar hearings. For the criminal case, he similarly alleged a failure to furnish a dismissal order promptly and unwarranted dismissal for lack of prosecution.
On the charge of partiality, Villegas asserted three grounds: (1) in the civil case, the defendants relied on a lease contract the respondent had notarized before her judgeship, implying bias to defend her own document; (2) the accused in the criminal case and a defendant in the civil case were her relatives and political allies; and (3) a defendant had been her former client. The respondent judge denied all allegations.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Municipal Judge Lourdes V. Diama is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law and manifest partiality based on her dismissal of the mentioned civil and criminal cases.

RULING

The Court dismissed the administrative complaint, absolving the respondent judge. The investigating judge’s findings, which the Court adopted, established that the dismissals were legally justified and not tainted by bias. Regarding gross ignorance of the law, the evidence showed the dismissals were proper applications of Rule 17, Section 3 of the Rules of Court, which permits dismissal for a plaintiff’s failure to appear at trial or to prosecute an action for an unreasonable time. In the civil case, the plaintiffs and their counsel, despite notice, failed to appear at the last scheduled hearing on July 18, 1964, and took no action to reset the case for over a year and a half before the dismissal. In the criminal case, the judge granted the prosecution’s motion to set trial but, accommodating defense counsel’s schedule, offered alternative dates via a letter to the private prosecutor, who never replied or appeared on the offered dates. The dismissal followed this non-appearance. Copies of the orders were duly sent, with receipts in the record.
On the charge of manifest partiality, the complainant failed to substantiate his claims with evidence. He did not prove the alleged familial or political relationships. The fact that the judge had notarized a document involved in the case years prior and that a party was a former client did not, by themselves, establish bias, especially absent any motion for her disqualification during the prolonged proceedings. Her actions, particularly her effort to accommodate the complainant’s lawyer’s schedule in the criminal case, demonstrated impartiality and a desire to expedite the proceedings, not prejudice. Therefore, no administrative liability attaches.