AM RTJ 02 1698; (June, 2005) (Digest)
A.M. No. RTJ-02-1698; June 23, 2005
Dante Vicente, petitioner, vs. Judge Jose S. Majaducon, respondent.
FACTS
The administrative complaint stemmed from Judge Majaducon’s handling of the criminal cases against Evelyn Te, who was convicted on four counts of violating B.P. Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law). After her conviction became final, Te filed various motions, including one treated as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, seeking modification of her sentence or release. In an Order dated July 5, 2000, respondent judge granted Te’s release on bail, citing Rule 102, Section 14 of the Rules of Court (habeas corpus). Complainant Dante Vicente alleged that the judge acted with gross ignorance of the law, grave abuse of authority, and manifest partiality. He contended that no formal habeas corpus petition was docketed, making the bail order improper, and criticized the judge’s alleged special treatment of Te, including prior hospital confinement. The judge defended his action, asserting he acted within his discretion under habeas corpus proceedings.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge Jose S. Majaducon is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law or procedure in granting bail to a convict whose judgment of conviction had long become final and executory.
RULING
Yes, respondent judge is guilty of gross ignorance of the law. The Supreme Court emphasized that a writ of habeas corpus is not a remedy for questioning a final and executory judgment. Evelyn Te’s conviction had attained finality; thus, her proper remedy was not habeas corpus but a judicial clemency petition to the Chief Executive. By treating her motion as a habeas corpus petition and granting bail, Judge Majaducon displayed a fundamental lack of understanding of basic legal principles. The Court ruled that such an error was not a mere lapse in judgment but a gross ignorance that eroded public confidence in the judiciary. At the time of the resolution, respondent had already compulsorily retired. Since dismissal or suspension was no longer feasible, the Court imposed a fine of Forty Thousand Pesos (₱40,000.00), to be deducted from the amount previously set aside from his retirement benefits.