G.R. No. A.M. No. 1648-CFI September 10, 1981
ALEJANDRO GALAN and CARMEN T. GALAN, complainants, vs. JUDGE DIMALANES B. BUISSAN, respondent.

FACTS

Complainants Alejandro and Carmen Galan were charged with estafa before the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Norte, Branch III, presided by respondent Judge Dimalanes B. Buissan. The information recommended a bail of P1,000 for each accused. On June 16, 1976, respondent judge signed a warrant of arrest for service in San Carlos City, Negros Occidental, but the warrant did not state the amount of bail. Consequently, when the complainants were arrested on October 13, 1976, they were detained without a specified bail amount. The arresting authorities had to telegraph inquiries to the court, and the complainants’ relative had to travel to Dipolog City to ascertain and post the P2,000 cash bond. They were detained for six days until their release on October 19, 1976. The criminal case was eventually dismissed upon withdrawal by the complainant.
In his comment, respondent judge admitted the oversight. He explained that he routinely signed the warrant prepared by his clerk of court, honestly believing it was for service within his jurisdiction, and thus failed to notice the omission of the bail amount and the out-of-province destination. He asserted the mistake was unintentional, without malice, and that any delay was due to necessary communications. He further claimed the administrative complaint was masterminded by a former judge.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Dimalanes B. Buissan is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law or violation of constitutional rights for issuing a warrant of arrest without stating the bail amount, leading to the complainants’ detention.

RULING

The Supreme Court found the respondent judge administratively liable, though not for gross ignorance of the law or a constitutional violation warranting severe penalty. The Court clarified that there was no deliberate deprivation of the right to bail, as the complainants were eventually released upon posting bond. The core failing was the judge’s neglect of a specific procedural rule. Under Section 7, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, when a warrant is to be served outside the court’s jurisdiction, the issuing judge must fix the bail and authorize any judge where the accused is found to accept it. By his own admission, respondent judge failed to comply with this duty.
The Court accepted that the lapse was an unintentional oversight rather than a product of malice or ill will. However, such carelessness in a ministerial duty directly impacting personal liberty cannot be excused. A judge must exercise utmost diligence, especially in matters concerning the deprivation of freedom. The failure to indicate bail on the warrant caused unnecessary confusion and prolonged detention, which could have been avoided with due care. Therefore, while the act did not constitute gross ignorance, it demonstrated a lack of circumspection. The Court admonished Judge Buissan to be more careful and circumspect in his judicial functions, with a warning that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.