A.M. No. 2125-CTJ October 23, 1982
CANDELARIA VILLAMOR, complainant, vs. CITY JUDGE SILVINO LU. BARRO of Gingoog City, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Candelaria Villamor was the complaining witness in a criminal case for lesiones menos graves. After testifying at a prior hearing, she failed to appear at a scheduled continuation on August 24, 1978, despite having been duly notified. Upon the trial fiscal’s motion, respondent City Judge Silvino Lu. Barro issued an order for her arrest. Villamor appeared in court that same afternoon, explaining her non-appearance was due to a mistaken belief the hearing was in the afternoon, consistent with prior schedules. Judge Barro advised her to ask the city fiscal to file a motion to lift the arrest order.
Villamor did not understand this advice and did not contact the fiscal. She was subsequently arrested and detained for approximately eighteen hours, from 5:00 PM until 11:00 AM the next day, when the fiscal finally moved for the order’s lifting. Villamor filed this administrative complaint, alleging grave abuse of authority, as her testimony was already completed. The investigator found no grave abuse, but the Deputy Court Administrator recommended a fine, faulting the judge for not lifting the order himself after her explanation.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Barro is administratively liable for his handling of the order of arrest against complainant Villamor.

RULING

Yes, Judge Barro is administratively liable for negligence and dereliction of duty. The Court found his failure to seasonably lift the arrest order caused Villamor’s needless detention. While the initial order was valid due to her non-appearance, her subsequent personal appearance and satisfactory explanation directly before the judge created an immediate duty to rectify the situation. Judge Barro erred in merely advising her to seek the fiscal’s intervention instead of acting sua sponte to lift the order, which was within his judicial authority and responsibility. This omission unjustly deprived Villamor of her liberty for eighteen hours.
The Court considered Judge Barro’s prior administrative record, which included cases of gross error, carelessness, negligence, and undue delay, for which he had been previously sanctioned. Given the instant dereliction and his disciplinary history, the Court imposed a fine equivalent to three months’ salary, to be deducted from his retirement pay, having retired in 1982. The ruling emphasizes that judges must act with dispatch to correct orders and prevent unjust deprivation of liberty.