G.R. No. A.M. No. MTJ-02-1419. December 27, 2002.
EDUARDO M. MARTINEZ, SR. and RUPERTO G. MARCELO, complainants, vs. JUDGE ORLANDO C. PAGUIO, MTC, Branch 1, Meycauayan, Bulacan, respondent.

FACTS

The Meralco Village Homeowners Association, Inc. (MVHAI) owned a vacant lot used for sports activities. On April 10, 1998, Bernabe Antonio and others constructed a perimeter fence on a portion of the lot. MVHAI member Eduardo Martinez, Sr. reported the incident to police. MVHAI filed a criminal complaint (I.S. No. 99-1454) for violation of Republic Act No. 7279 against Antonio et al. with the Provincial Prosecutor. On May 6, 1999, after Antonio refused to demolish the fence, homeowners, including Martinez and Ruperto Marcelo, demolished it. Antonio filed a criminal complaint for malicious mischief against Martinez, Marcelo, and others (Criminal Case No. 99-28365) before respondent Judge Orlando C. Paguio of the MTC of Meycauayan, Bulacan.
Martinez and Marcelo filed a motion for inhibition, alleging Judge Paguio commented they “took the law into their own hands.” The judge denied the motion. On September 23, 1999, despite receiving subpoenae only the previous afternoon, the judge arraigned them without their counsel, appointing a counsel de oficio for Martinez and allowing Marcelo’s wife (an Assistant Provincial Prosecutor) to assist him. They pleaded not guilty.
Subsequently, Martinez and Marcelo filed a motion to suspend proceedings based on a prejudicial question from a civil case for quieting of title (Civil Case No. 89-M-2000) filed by MVHAI. On March 2, 2000, Judge Paguio denied the motion, fixed bail at P10,000 each for Martinez and Marcelo, and issued warrants for their arrest when they failed to post bail. Martinez and Marcelo moved for reconsideration, arguing bail was not required under the Rules on Summary Procedure.
They filed an administrative complaint against Judge Paguio for gross ignorance of the law, grave abuse of authority, and gross partiality, citing: (a) his failure to follow the Rules on Summary Procedure by requiring them to refute Antonio’s ownership claim instead of requiring Antonio to establish a prima facie case; (b) prejudging the case; (c) insisting on arraignment despite short notice; and (d) erroneously ordering them to post bail. Judge Paguio denied the charges, claiming his actions were in accordance with rules and aimed at speedy disposition.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Orlando C. Paguio is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law, grave abuse of authority, and gross partiality in handling Criminal Case No. 99-28365.

RULING

The Supreme Court found Judge Paguio GUILTY of gross ignorance of the law but DISMISSED the charges of grave abuse of authority and gross partiality.
1. Gross Ignorance of the Law: The Court agreed with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) that Judge Paguio displayed a lack of mastery of the 1991 Rules on Summary Procedure. By ordering Martinez and Marcelo to post bail, he ignored settled jurisprudence (Agunda vs. Judge Tresvalles) that bail is not required under the Rules on Summary Procedure for offenses punishable by imprisonment not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding P1,000, or both. Malicious mischief, with damage of P100,000, falls under the Revised Penal Code and is beyond the scope of summary procedure, but the judge’s error in applying bail rules constituted gross ignorance. The Court emphasized that judges must know and apply basic law; failure constitutes gross ignorance even absent bad faith.
2. Grave Abuse of Authority and Gross Partiality: The Court found insufficient evidence to prove these charges. The matter of inhibition rests on judicial discretion, and repeated rulings against a litigant, even if erroneous, do not alone prove bias. There was no clear evidence of arbitrariness or prejudice. The denial of motions and petitions were judicial acts remediable through judicial channels, not administrative complaints.
PENALTY: Judge Paguio was ordered to pay a fine of TWELVE THOUSAND PESOS (P12,000.00), to be deducted from his withheld retirement benefits (he had compulsorily retired on February 26, 2002). The Court noted his prior administrative liability in another case (A.M. No. MTJ-00-1335) for delay in deciding a case.