AM 01 9 245 MTC; (December, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.M. No. 01-9-245-MTC December 5, 2001
Re: Hold-Departure Order Issued by Judge Agustin T. Sardido, MTC, Koronadal, South Cotabato in Criminal Case No. 19418
FACTS
This administrative matter arose from an undated indorsement by then Secretary of Justice Hernando B. Perez concerning a hold-departure order issued by Judge Agustin T. Sardido of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Koronadal, South Cotabato. The order was issued in Criminal Case No. 19418, “People v. Jinky A. Besorio” for estafa, upon motion of the private complainants, directing the Bureau of Immigration to prevent the accused from leaving the country. When required to comment, Judge Sardido explained that he issued the order under the belief he was authorized to do so, admitting he was unaware at the time that he lacked such authority.
ISSUE
Whether Judge Agustin T. Sardido is administratively liable for issuing a hold-departure order in a criminal case falling under the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court.
RULING
Yes, Judge Sardido is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found that the issuance of the hold-departure order was a clear error. Supreme Court Circular No. 39-97 explicitly provides that hold-departure orders shall be issued only in criminal cases within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts (RTCs). Municipal Trial Courts, like the one presided over by Judge Sardido, have no jurisdiction to issue such orders. The Circular was promulgated precisely to prevent the indiscriminate issuance of these orders, which infringe upon the constitutional right to travel, and to ensure that only courts with appropriate jurisdiction issue them with complete and accurate information.
The Court emphasized that Canon 3, Rule 3.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct requires judges to be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence. Circular No. 39-97 had been in effect since 1997 and had been the subject of several prior administrative cases. Judge Sardido’s claim of good faith and lack of awareness does not excuse the violation, as the Court has consistently reminded judges of their duty to keep abreast of all laws and circulars. Following precedent in analogous cases, the Court imposed the penalty of reprimand with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act would be dealt with more severely. The recommendation of the Deputy Court Administrator was adopted.