G.R. No. A.M. No. 13-MJ July 18, 1974
MARIA AIDA JAKOSALEM, complainant, vs. PRECIOSO B. CORDOVEZ, Municipal Judge of Manolo Fortich, Bukidnon, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Maria Aida Jakosalem charged Municipal Judge Precioso B. Cordovez with gross negligence and violation of judicial laws. She alleged that on January 5, 1973, she sought to file a criminal complaint for grave oral defamation but found the respondent judge absent from his office, later locating him at his gasoline station. She claimed he refused to sign the jurat on her complaint, gave her the “run-around,” and only complied after her counsel intervened. She further alleged he refused to issue a warrant of arrest, citing a personal connection to the accused, and was often unavailable during office hours due to attention to his private business interests.
In his answer, respondent judge stated the complainant approached him on January 10, 1973. He admitted he did not immediately sign the jurat on the complaint itself, instead administering oaths only on the supporting affidavits. He advised her to first submit the complaint to the chief of police for entry in the blotter, investigation, and processing before official filing with the court. He denied any delay, asserting he issued the warrant on January 30, 1973, after preliminary examination. The complainant later executed an affidavit of desistance, withdrawing her complaint due to a “simple misunderstanding,” leading the investigating judge to recommend dismissal.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Cordovez is administratively liable for his handling of the complainant’s criminal complaint.

RULING

Yes, the respondent judge is administratively liable. Despite the complainant’s desistance and the lack of full evidentiary hearing, the Court found him guilty based on his own admissions in his answer, which constituted a violation of Canon 2 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics. This Canon mandates that the administration of justice should be speedy and careful, with courts serving litigants and the community.
The Court rejected the judge’s justification for his actions. His deliberate refusal to administer the oath on the complaint itself, based on his requirement of prior referral to the chief of police for investigation, had no basis in law. Under Section 2, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, an offended party may directly commence a criminal action. By imposing an extra-legal procedural hurdle, the judge caused an unjustified delay in the administration of justice. The Court emphasized that such an erroneous practice could have disastrous consequences, such as allowing the prescriptive period for a crime to lapse. Furthermore, the Court took the occasion to remind judges to strictly observe official hours and avoid conduct that creates an appearance of impropriety, especially concerning engagement in other businesses.
Accordingly, respondent Judge Precioso B. Cordovez was CENSURED and WARNED that a repetition would merit a heavier sanction. He was enjoined to act with dispatch on all complaints and to refrain from any conduct appearing improper. A copy of the decision was ordered entered in his official record.