AM RTJ 03 1774; (May, 2004) (Digest)
A.M. No. RTJ-03-1774. May 27, 2004. PROV. PROSECUTOR DORENTINO Z. FLORESTA, complainant, vs. Judge ELIODORO G. UBIADAS, Regional Trial Court, Olongapo City, Branch 72, respondent.
FACTS
Provincial Prosecutor Dorentino Z. Floresta filed an administrative complaint against Judge Eliodoro G. Ubiadas for gross ignorance of the law, grave abuse of authority, and violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The charges stemmed from three primary incidents. First, respondent judge dismissed a criminal case for illegal entry involving Chinese nationals apprehended near Scarborough Shoal, citing lack of jurisdiction over the contested area within the Philippine Exclusive Economic Zone. He also failed to resolve the prosecution’s motion for reconsideration of this dismissal for over two years. Second, he granted a petition for bail for an accused charged under the Special Protection of Children Act without conducting a hearing with the prosecution’s participation. Third, he issued an order disqualifying complainant from prosecuting a case despite the latter’s valid deputization by the Ombudsman, which order he later reconsidered.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge Eliodoro G. Ubiadas is administratively liable for the acts complained of.
RULING
Yes, respondent is administratively liable, but not for gross ignorance of the law regarding the dismissal of the illegal entry case. On the first charge, while the dismissal order was legally questionable, it was based on the judge’s interpretation of jurisdictional boundaries in an area of international dispute. Administrative liability for gross ignorance requires a showing of gross misapplication of settled law, which was not sufficiently established here, as his action was not proven to be motivated by bad faith. However, his failure to resolve the motion for reconsideration for an inordinate period constitutes undue delay, a violation of the duty to dispose of court business promptly.
On the second charge, respondent is liable for gross ignorance of the law and procedure. The grant of bail in a case involving a charge under Republic Act No. 7610 , where the prescribed penalty is reclusion temporal in its medium period, is not a matter of right. He erred grievously in granting bail without a hearing to determine whether the evidence of guilt is strong, as expressly required by the Rules of Court. His claim of the prosecution’s non-appearance does not excuse this mandatory procedural requirement.
On the third charge, respondent’s act of disqualifying the properly deputized prosecutor was a clear error. While he later reconsidered, the initial order displayed a lack of diligence and familiarity with basic rules on the Ombudsman’s authority to deputize prosecutors. Considering the totality of the infractions, particularly the serious procedural error in the bail grant, the Court imposed a fine of Twenty Thousand Pesos (₱20,000.00) with a stern warning.