A.M. No. 237-MJ. April 25, 1978.
ALPIO BALLEZA, complainant, vs. MUNICIPAL JUDGE ALFREDO BOLINAS of Banate, Iloilo, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Alpio Balleza filed an administrative case against respondent Municipal Judge Alfredo Bolinas. The sole ground alleged was that Judge Bolinas proceeded with the trial of an unlawful detainer case where Balleza was the defendant, despite Balleza’s absence. Balleza explained that he failed to appear because he believed a motion for postponement filed by the plaintiff’s counsel would be granted by the court.
In his comment, respondent Judge stated that the motion for postponement was actually filed only after the trial had already been conducted. He emphasized that even if it were filed before, the grant or denial of such a motion is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, and a litigant should not assume it would be automatically granted. To demonstrate his good faith and lack of bias, Judge Bolinas pointed out that the prevailing party in the detainer case was not related to him, whereas complainant Balleza was actually a close friend and a distant relative.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Municipal Judge Alfredo Bolinas committed an administrative offense by proceeding with the trial of the unlawful detainer case in the absence of the defendant-complainant.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the administrative complaint for lack of merit. The legal logic is clear: a judge’s discretion in managing court proceedings, including ruling on motions for postponement, is fundamental to judicial function. The Acting Judicial Consultant’s investigation found the charge untenable. The hearing had been postponed several times previously, and neither party has a right to assume a motion for postponement will be granted. Notably, the plaintiff and counsel still appeared at the hearing, anticipating the possible denial of their own motion. The respondent judge’s act of proceeding with the trial under these circumstances, especially where there was no showing of arbitrariness or bad faith, was a proper exercise of judicial discretion. The Court also noted that the substantive issue of being deprived of a hearing could be raised in the appeal of the detainer case pending before the Court of First Instance.
The Court emphasized that even complaints appearing insufficient on their face are inquired into to give full effect to the constitutional right to petition. Dismissing such a complaint after investigation serves to reassure the public that all charges against members of the judiciary are taken seriously and properly resolved, thereby clearing the respondent judge’s record and providing satisfaction to both parties.