A.M. No. 1610-MJ September 12, 1980
Federico Advincula, complainant, vs. Honorable Mariano Malicudio, respondent.

FACTS

Federico Advincula, an official from the Office of the Municipal Mayor of Dumarao, Capiz, filed a sworn complaint against Municipal Judge Mariano M. Malicudio for neglect of duty and partiality. The complaint centered on a criminal case for qualified theft against one Pedro Catalan, which was pending in the respondent judge’s court. Advincula alleged that the case was neither formally docketed nor assigned a case number. When confronted, Judge Malicudio reportedly claimed he had referred the matter to the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) in Iloilo City, but Advincula’s verification allegedly revealed no such referral was made.
The case was referred for investigation to Executive Judge Agapito I. Cruz. After several postponements, during the scheduled hearing, complainant Advincula appeared with the respondent and filed a motion to dismiss. He stated his evidence was insufficient to prove his allegations. The investigating judge consequently recommended the dismissal of the administrative case based on this desistance.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Mariano Malicudio should be held administratively liable despite the complainant’s motion to dismiss the charges.

RULING

Yes, the respondent judge is administratively liable. The Supreme Court emphasized that a complainant’s desistance or withdrawal of charges does not automatically result in the dismissal of an administrative case. The Court retains the authority and duty to proceed if the charges can be sufficiently established based on the record. This principle ensures that the administration of justice is not compromised by private settlements and that judicial conduct is held to the requisite standards.
The Court found the charge of neglect of duty substantiated by the respondent judge’s own admission in his comment. He conceded that he did not docket or assign a case number to the criminal complaint against Pedro Catalan, justifying this omission as a personal “policy” of not doing so until a preliminary examination was completed. This self-declared policy directly contravened the mandatory duty imposed by Section 18, Rule 136 of the Rules of Court, which requires judges to keep a docket book and enter therein all cases, numbering them consecutively. By failing to comply with this clear procedural rule, Judge Malicudio neglected a fundamental duty essential to the orderly administration of his court. Accordingly, the Court found him administratively liable. He was reprimanded and admonished that a repetition of the same or similar neglect would be dealt with more severely.