G.R. No. A.M. No. RTJ-91-657, A.M. No. RTJ-91-704, A.M. No. RTJ-91-721, A.M. No. RTJ-91-746, A.M. No. RTJ-91-767, A.M. No. RTJ-92-816, A.M. No. RTJ-92-823. June 21, 1993.
LOURDES PRESADO, DOMINADOR SIA, JOSE DE JESUS, MANUEL O. ZURBITO, DELFIN RICARTE, DEBORAH PERINO, and RIZALINA Q. VALENCIA, complainants, vs. HON. JUDGE MANUEL C. GENOVA, respondent.

FACTS

Seven administrative complaints were filed against respondent Judge Manuel C. Genova, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 44, Masbate, Masbate. The cases were consolidated and referred to Associate Justice Gloria C. Paras of the Court of Appeals for investigation. The complaints and the findings/recommendations are as follows:
1. A.M. No. RTJ-91-657 (Lourdes Presado): Charged respondent with violation of the Anti-Graft & Corrupt Practices Act, alleging his wife demanded and received money from parties with pending cases and accepted a sumptuous meal from a litigant. Complainant later filed manifestations desisting from prosecution due to financial constraints, filial obligations, and a “change of heart.” The persons alleged to have given money or meals testified and affirmed affidavits denying the charges. The Investigating Justice recommended dismissal for lack of evidence.
2. A.M. No. RTJ-91-704 (Dominador Sia): Charged respondent with serious misconduct, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, alleging bias and refusal to allow presentation of documentary evidence in Civil Case No. 321, and that his wife solicited gifts from a party for a favorable decision. Respondent denied the charges, explaining his orders were based on procedural grounds (e.g., filings out of time). The Court of Appeals affirmed his decision in the civil case. Complainant’s sole witness (Lourdes Presado) withdrew her support. The Investigating Justice found the charges unsubstantiated and recommended dismissal.
3. A.M. No. RTJ-91-721 (Jose de Jesus): Charged respondent with knowingly rendering an unjust judgment and/or ignorance of the law in Criminal Case No. 6184 for rape. Complainant, the accused, alleged the trial was railroaded, his right to counsel was violated, and he was convicted based on incredible testimony. The Investigating Justice found that respondent failed to ensure the accused was properly represented by counsel during arraignment and plea, as he allowed a lawyer who had not formally entered his appearance to represent the accused. This deprived the accused of his constitutional right to counsel. The Investigating Justice recommended that respondent be held liable for ignorance of the law.
4. A.M. No. RTJ-91-746 (Manuel O. Zurbito): Charged respondent with gross ignorance of the law for issuing a warrant of arrest in Criminal Case No. 6223 without personally examining the complainant and her witnesses, relying solely on the affidavit of the complainant. The Investigating Justice found that respondent did not comply with the constitutional requirement of personally determining probable cause. Respondent admitted he did not examine the witnesses. The Investigating Justice recommended that respondent be held liable for gross ignorance of the law.
5. A.M. No. RTJ-91-767 (Delfin Ricarte): Charged respondent with gross ignorance of the law and/or knowingly rendering an unjust judgment in Civil Case No. 3487 for unlawful detainer. The Investigating Justice found that respondent committed an error of judgment, not amounting to bad faith, gross ignorance, or dishonesty, as his decision was based on his interpretation of the evidence. The charge was deemed judicial in nature and not a proper subject of administrative discipline. The Investigating Justice recommended dismissal.
6. A.M. No. RTJ-92-816 (Deborah Perino): Charged respondent with gross ignorance of the law for issuing an Order denying a motion to dismiss in Civil Case No. 3645 without stating the legal basis, in violation of the Constitution and the ruling in Borromeo v. Court of Appeals. Respondent admitted the omission, claiming it was an oversight. The Investigating Justice found respondent liable for gross ignorance of the law for failing to comply with a clear constitutional and jurisprudential mandate.
7. A.M. No. RTJ-92-823 (Rizalina Q. Valencia): Charged respondent with gross ignorance of the law for issuing an Order in Civil Case No. 2999 denying a motion for execution and granting a counter-motion for relief from judgment, despite a final and executory judgment from the Court of Appeals. The Investigating Justice found that respondent’s order effectively altered the final judgment of a superior court, constituting gross ignorance of the law and conduct prejudicial to the proper administration of justice.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Manuel C. Genova should be held administratively liable based on the charges in the seven consolidated complaints.

RULING

The Supreme Court adopted the findings and recommendations of the Investigating Justice, with modifications.
1. A.M. No. RTJ-91-657 (Presado): DISMISSED for lack of evidence due to complainant’s desistance and the exculpatory testimony of the witnesses named in the complaint.
2. A.M. No. RTJ-91-704 (Sia): DISMISSED for failure to substantiate the charges.
3. A.M. No. RTJ-91-721 (de Jesus): Respondent is found GUILTY of ignorance of the law for violating the accused’s right to counsel during arraignment. He is FINED Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00).
4. A.M. No. RTJ-91-746 (Zurbito): Respondent is found GUILTY of gross ignorance of the law for issuing a warrant of arrest without personally examining the complainant and witnesses. He is FINED Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00).
5. A.M. No. RTJ-91-767 (Ricarte): DISMISSED, the error alleged being judicial in nature.
6. A.M. No. RTJ-92-816 (Perino): Respondent is found GUILTY of gross ignorance of the law for issuing an order without stating the legal basis. He is FINED Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00).
7. A.M. No. RTJ-92-823 (Valencia): Respondent is found GUILTY of gross ignorance of the law and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice for issuing an order that altered a final and executory judgment of the Court of Appeals.
Considering the seriousness and repeated nature of the offenses, particularly the gross ignorance of the law demonstrated in multiple cases, the Supreme Court found the separate fines insufficient. Respondent Judge Manuel C. Genova is DISMISSED from service for gross incompetence and misconduct in office, with forfeiture of all retirement privileges and benefits, except accrued earned leave credits. The dismissal is immediately executory.