G.R. No. MTJ-07-1670. July 23, 2008.
Atty. Roderick M. Santos and Alexander Andres, Complainants, vs. Judge Lauro Bernardo, Municipal Trial Court, Bocaue, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainants charged respondent Judge Lauro Bernardo with impropriety, manifest bias, grave abuse of discretion, and gross ignorance of the law. The impropriety charge stemmed from the judge allegedly allowing his girlfriend, “Boots,” to stay in his chamber, using court resources and creating an appearance of impropriety. The primary legal charges concerned Criminal Case No. 06-004 for Grave Coercion filed against the complainants. They alleged the judge, harboring a grudge after Atty. Santos moved for his inhibition in prior cases, allowed the immediate filing of the criminal complaint without conducting the required preliminary investigation. They argued that for Grave Coercion, which carries a penalty of up to six years imprisonment, a preliminary investigation is mandatory under Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure before the filing of an information. The judge instead signed the complaint and set the case for hearing with undue haste.
In his Comment, respondent judge countered that “Boots” was his lawful wife, and her presence was due to health reasons. Regarding the criminal case, he argued that the procedure he followed was for cases falling under the Rules on Summary Procedure, where a judge may determine probable cause from the complaint and supporting affidavits without a full preliminary investigation conducted by a prosecutor.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Bernardo is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law for not conducting a preliminary investigation before taking cognizance of the Grave Coercion case against the complainants.

RULING

Yes, the respondent judge is liable for gross ignorance of the law. The Supreme Court clarified the procedural requirements. Grave Coercion under Article 286 of the Revised Penal Code is punishable by arresto mayor and a fine, which falls under the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure. For such cases, the rules prescribe a specific, expedited process. Under the applicable Section 8(b) of Rule 112, as amended, when a complaint for an offense covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure is filed directly with the MTC, the judge is tasked to personally evaluate the complaint and supporting affidavits to determine probable cause. This is distinct from a regular preliminary investigation conducted by a prosecutor for offenses with higher penalties. The Court found that the judge, in evaluating the sworn complaint and issuing a summons, followed the correct procedure for summary cases. Therefore, his actions did not constitute a denial of the right to a preliminary investigation, as no such right attaches to offenses covered by summary procedure. Consequently, the charges of gross ignorance of the law and grave abuse of discretion on this point were without merit. However, the Court found the judge liable for simple misconduct for allowing his then-fiancée frequent access to his chamber, which compromised the court’s dignity and decorum, and imposed a fine.