A.M. No. 1439-MJ. July 22, 1980. THERESITA O. REVITA, complainant, vs. MUNICIPAL JUDGE SERGIO F. RIMANDO of Tinglayan now Lubuagan, Kalinga-Apayao, respondent.
FACTS:

Complainant Theresita O. Revita charged respondent Municipal Judge Sergio F. Rimando with gross ignorance of the law for dismissing her grave slander case against Lorenzo A. Viñas. The case originated from a complaint filed in 1974. The original judge, after preliminary examination, found the offense to be light oral defamation, not grave slander, and set the case for arraignment without issuing a warrant. That judge later inhibited himself, and respondent Judge Rimando was designated to try the case. At arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty, and her counsel orally moved to quash the complaint. After written submissions, Judge Rimando dismissed the complaint in 1976, citing grounds that the defamatory words in the local dialect were not translated in the complaint and that the words were not slanderous, being akin to a mere profanity.
The prosecution did not appeal the dismissal. Instead, complainant Revita filed this administrative case, arguing that the respondent judge erred in dismissing the complaint without the fiscal’s conformity to the motion to dismiss, without holding oral arguments, and on erroneous legal grounds. She also blamed the respondent for irregularities concerning an ineffectual bail bond filed earlier in the case.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Sergio F. Rimando is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law in dismissing the grave slander complaint.

RULING

The Supreme Court found the respondent judge not administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law but admonished him for lack of prudence. The Court clarified that there is no rule requiring a fiscal’s conformity to a motion to quash or dismiss. The absence of oral arguments was not fatal as the motion was thoroughly argued in the written pleadings. The issue with the bail bond was imputable to the original judge, not the respondent.
However, the Court held that the respondent judge committed a serious error of judgment in dismissing the complaint. His grounds for dismissal were flawed. First, the requirement for translation was waived when the accused failed to move to quash on that specific ground before pleading. Second, his comparison of the phrase “Garampang ka nga babae” (translated in supporting affidavits as “You flirt and fool around with men”) to the mere profanity “Putang ina mo” was incorrect; the translated phrase was clearly defamatory. The judge should not have dismissed the complaint without first hearing the prosecution’s evidence, creating an impression of looking for a pretext to dismiss.
Nevertheless, for an error in judgment to constitute gross ignorance warranting disciplinary action, it must be shown to stem from a conscious and deliberate intent to perpetrate an injustice. There was no proof of such fraud, dishonesty, or corruption in this case. As a matter of public policy, a judge’s judicial acts are not subject to disciplinary action merely for being erroneous, absent bad faith. However, judges must exercise constant diligence. Therefore, the Court admonished Judge Rimando to exercise more prudence and circumspection in his duties, warning that future culpable impropriety would merit disciplinary action.