A.M. No. MTJ-02-1412; March 28, 2003
Bernie G. Miaque, Noel R. Cabobos, Rodolfo H. Divinagracia and Peter G. Jimenea, complainants, vs. Judge Nilo P. Pamonag, in his capacity as Acting Judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Pototan-Mina, Branch 008, Iloilo Province, respondent.

FACTS

Complainants, connected with the Daily Informer newspaper, were charged with libel before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Pototan-Mina, Iloilo, presided by respondent Judge Nilo P. Pamonag. Acting on the complaint, respondent judge conducted a preliminary investigation and subsequently issued warrants for the complainants’ arrest, setting bail at P10,000.00 each. The complainants then filed a petition for prohibition to enjoin the enforcement of the warrants.
The complainants subsequently filed an administrative case against respondent judge for gross ignorance of the law, grave abuse of authority, and issuing patently illegal orders. They contended that under Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 4363 , the respondent judge, presiding over an MCTC that is not in the capital of the province or a city, had no authority to conduct a preliminary investigation or issue arrest warrants in a libel case.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Nilo P. Pamonag is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law for conducting a preliminary investigation and issuing warrants of arrest in a libel case, contrary to the explicit provisions of Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.

RULING

Yes, the respondent judge is guilty of gross ignorance of the law. The Supreme Court agreed with the Office of the Court Administrator’s finding. Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 4363 , explicitly vests jurisdiction to conduct preliminary investigations in libel cases solely with the provincial or city prosecutor, or the municipal court of the city or capital of the province. The MCTC of Pototan-Mina, where respondent judge sat, is neither in Iloilo City (the provincial capital) nor in Passi City. Therefore, he lacked any authority to act on the libel complaint.
The Court emphasized that while judges may not be held liable for erroneous judgments made in good faith, a basic and elementary knowledge of the law is imperative. Ignorance of a clear and longstanding statutory provision, especially one concerning jurisdiction, constitutes gross ignorance. The Court noted the respondent’s admission of error, his claim of good faith, and his reliance on an outdated pamphlet of the law. While these were appreciated as mitigating circumstances, they do not excuse the violation. The duty to keep abreast of the law is a fundamental judicial responsibility under the Code of Judicial Conduct. Accordingly, the Court modified the recommended penalty and imposed a fine of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) with a stern warning.