G.R. No. A.M. No. MTJ-09-1729. January 20, 2009.
NORYN S. TAN, complainant, vs. JUDGE MARIA CLARITA CASUGA-TABIN, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 4, Baguio City, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Noryn S. Tan was arrested on November 9, 2006, in Quezon City pursuant to a warrant issued by respondent Judge Maria Clarita Casuga-Tabin of the MTCC, Baguio City, in Criminal Case No. 118628 for violation of B.P. Blg. 22. Complainant alleged she first learned of the case only upon her arrest. She discovered that respondent had issued an Order dated August 8, 2006, directing her to appear for arraignment on October 10, 2006, which was sent by registered mail to the PNP Quezon City for service. Complainant claimed she never received this Order, there was no proof of its service, and respondent nevertheless issued a warrant for her arrest after she failed to appear at the arraignment, causing her grievance and embarrassment.
In her Comment, respondent admitted issuing the arrest warrant because complainant failed to appear. She explained that the August 8, 2006 Order was sent via registered mail (Registry Receipt No. 0310) to complainant “through the Chief of Police, PNP, 1104, Quezon City.” She conceded that no return had been made by the Quezon City Police by October 10, 2006. She justified the warrant issuance on grounds of: (a) the presumption under the Rules of Court that official duty was regularly performed and a duly mailed letter was received; and (b) her interpretation of Section 12 of the 1983 Rule on Summary Procedure, which allows requiring bail where the accused does not reside in the place where the offense was committed (complainant being a Quezon City resident).
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) initially recommended dismissal for lack of merit, which the Court adopted in a November 12, 2007 Resolution. Complainant filed a Motion for Reconsideration, arguing the core issue was the propriety of issuing a warrant absent confirmed notice. Respondent, in her Comment on the motion, contended complainant’s motion raised no new issues and emphasized the operational necessity for courts to rely on presumptions of service when dealing with out-of-town respondents.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Maria Clarita Casuga-Tabin committed an administrative offense by issuing a warrant of arrest against complainant without sufficient proof that complainant had been duly notified of her arraignment.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the Motion for Reconsideration and found respondent guilty of abuse of authority.
The Court held that under Section 16 of the 1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, a court shall not order the arrest of the accused except for failure to appear whenever required. Respondent’s justification for the arrest—complainant’s non-appearance—was predicated on the presumption of regularity (that the mailed Order was received) since the notice was sent to the PNP Quezon City. The Court ruled that such presumption cannot be the sole basis for depriving a person of liberty, especially when the notice was not sent directly to the accused’s residence but to the police, and respondent admitted no return of service had been received by the court at the time she issued the warrant.
Furthermore, the Court rejected respondent’s reliance on Section 12 of the 1983 Rule on Summary Procedure. It clarified that the 1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure had superseded the 1983 rules. Under the applicable 1991 rules, the duty of the court, when a case is commenced by information, is to issue an order requiring the accused to submit a counter-affidavit, not to immediately set the case for arraignment. Respondent erred in proceeding directly to arraignment and issuing an arrest warrant for non-appearance without first complying with this procedure.
The Court emphasized that judges must be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence. Respondent’s issuance of the warrant, based on a flawed application of procedural rules and an unverified presumption, constituted gross ignorance of the law and/or abuse of authority. Considering it was her first offense in her relatively short time on the bench, the Court imposed a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00).