G.R. No. RTJ-96-1356, August 21, 1996
Edmelinda L. Fernandez, Complainant, vs. Judge Fausto H. Imbing, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Edmelinda L. Fernandez, the private offended party in two criminal cases for Murder and Frustrated Parricide, charged respondent Judge Fausto H. Imbing with grave abuse of authority and serious misconduct. She alleged that on May 3, 1995, the judge called the cases for trial despite them not being calendared and without notices sent to the parties. With unusual haste, he then ordered their provisional dismissal, leading to the accused’s immediate release. A subsequent motion for reconsideration by the prosecution was granted, and an alias warrant was issued, but the accused remained at large.
In his comment, respondent judge explained that he calendared the hearing upon the detained accused’s request. He gave oral instructions for notices, but the clerk-in-charge merely attached unsigned notices to the record and erased the cases from the calendar. Believing notices were sent, he proceeded with the hearing on May 3, 1995. In the absence of the prosecutors, he granted an oral motion to dismiss from a public attorney who was not the counsel of record. He later granted the prosecution’s motion for reconsideration and reinstated the cases.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Fausto H. Imbing is administratively liable for his actions in connection with the provisional dismissal and subsequent reinstatement of the criminal cases.

RULING

Yes, the respondent judge is administratively liable for grave abuse of authority and negligence. The Supreme Court agreed with the findings and recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator. The legal logic centers on a judge’s non-delegable duty to ensure the proper administration of court proceedings and the diligent supervision of court personnel.
The judge’s failure to verify if hearing notices were actually sent and received by the parties constituted gross negligence. His undue reliance on his clerk’s supposed competence does not exonerate him; rather, it solidifies his liability. Rule 3.09, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct mandates judges to organize and supervise court personnel to ensure prompt and efficient dispatch of business. By proceeding with an uncalendared hearing and hastily granting an oral motion for dismissal from a non-recognized counsel in serious criminal cases, the judge exhibited a flagrant abuse of authority. This reckless action directly enabled the accused to evade justice, causing irreparable injury despite the later reinstatement of the cases. The Court emphasized that a judge’s conduct must always be beyond reproach to preserve public faith in the judiciary. Consequently, the Court found him guilty and imposed a one-month suspension from office with a stern warning.