G.R. No.: A.M. No. MTJ-98-1154
Date: August 6, 1998

Case Parties: RENATO ALVARO RUPERTO, complainant, vs. JUDGE TIRSO F. BANQUERIGO, respondent.

FACTS

The administrative case originated from an ejectment case (Civil Case No. A-178) filed by complainant Renato Alvaro Ruperto against spouses Anselmo and Pacita Mojillo on August 2, 1995, before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Bindoy-Ayungon-Manjuyod, where respondent Judge Tirso F. Banquerigo was the acting presiding judge. The case was governed by the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. The defendants failed to file their answer within the reglementary period. Complainant filed a motion on September 1, 1995, for the court to summarily decide the case pursuant to the Rule. Respondent judge did not act on this motion and instead granted the defendants an additional ten days to file their answer. The case was set for hearing on December 14, 1995, and later reset to March 14, 1996, causing undue delay. Complainant charged respondent with ignorance of the law, malicious delay in the administration of justice, and grave abuse of discretion for disregarding the summary procedure rules.
Complainant also charged respondent with malicious prosecution, alleging that the judge issued a warrant for his arrest on February 26, 1990, for two counts of qualified theft related to coconuts from a disputed land. Complainant argued the issuance was malicious because the alleged crimes occurred openly and the land’s ownership was in issue. The criminal cases were later dismissed by the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City on March 13, 1991, for lack of criminal intent.
In his comment, respondent judge explained he was an acting judge reporting to the court only twice a week due to a heavy caseload. He admitted issuing the arrest warrant but asserted it was based on a prima facie case established during preliminary investigation, which was sustained by the Provincial Prosecutor’s Office. Regarding the ejectment case, he claimed the hearing dates were set by agreement of the parties and their counsel. He justified his inaction on the motion for summary decision by stating he believed it should be set for a hearing in the interest of justice and equity, and that complainant’s subsequent filing of a reply to affirmative defenses and an answer to a counterclaim amounted to abandoning his motion.

ISSUE

1. Whether respondent Judge Tirso F. Banquerigo is administratively liable for ignorance of the law, grave abuse of discretion, and malicious delay in the administration of justice for his handling of the ejectment case under the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure.
2. Whether respondent judge is administratively liable for malicious prosecution for issuing a warrant of arrest against the complainant in the qualified theft cases.

RULING

1. Yes, respondent judge is administratively liable for his handling of the ejectment case. The Supreme Court found that respondent judge failed to comply with his judicial duty under the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. Specifically, he violated Section 6 of the Rule, which mandates that if a defendant fails to answer within the reglementary period, the court shall, motu proprio or on plaintiff’s motion, render judgment based on the facts alleged in the complaint. By not acting on complainant’s motion for summary judgment and instead granting extensions and setting the case for hearings, respondent disregarded the summary nature of the procedure, causing undue delay. This constitutes ignorance of the law. The Court cited Rural Bank of Macalalag, Inc. vs. Maniwang, which holds a judge remiss for failing to decide a summary procedure case after a defendant’s failure to answer.
2. No, respondent judge is not administratively liable for malicious prosecution regarding the arrest warrant. The Court found that the issuance of the warrant of arrest was in accordance with proper procedure. Respondent judge established a prima facie case during the preliminary investigation, a finding sustained by the Provincial Prosecutor’s Office, which led to the filing of an information. The subsequent dismissal of the criminal cases on their merits or by stipulation does not negate the propriety of the initial finding of probable cause for issuing the warrant. There was no evidence of malice or dubious intent on the part of the judge.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
Respondent Judge Tirso F. Banquerigo was SEVERELY REPRIMANDED, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense would be dealt with more severely. The Court considered mitigating circumstances: respondent was detailed to multiple courts, affecting his efficiency, and there was no showing of malice, corrupt motives, or a prior administrative record.