AM 243; (May, 1979) (Digest)
A.M. No. 243-MJ. May 28, 1979. LT. ROBERTO LASTIMOSO, complainant, vs. MUNICIPAL JUDGE IGNACIO LAMBO OF MABINI, DAVAO DEL NORTE, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Lt. Roberto Lastimoso, a Philippine Constabulary commanding officer, filed an administrative complaint against respondent Municipal Judge Ignacio Lambo. The complaint alleged that when a PC sergeant filed a case for illegal possession of firearms against one David Pailog, the judge made remarks vouching for the accused’s character and expressing surprise at the filing. The complainant further alleged that the judge, despite acknowledging a prima facie case, refused to issue a warrant of arrest immediately, insisting on conducting another preliminary investigation, which created an appearance of bias and undue delay.
In his comment, respondent Judge Lambo categorically denied the allegations. He explained that upon receiving the complaint, he merely inquired about the delay between the incident and the filing, as the supporting affidavits were brief. He immediately docketed the case. He denied advising against the charge. Regarding the warrant, he asserted he was following constitutional procedure, explaining to the sergeant that a personal preliminary examination to determine probable cause was required before issuance, and he could not rely solely on the brief prepared affidavits.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge Ignacio Lambo should be held administratively liable for conduct prejudicial to the proper administration of justice based on the alleged biased remarks and refusal to issue a warrant of arrest.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint. The legal logic rests on the insufficiency of evidence to substantiate the charges and the propriety of the judge’s explained actions. The investigating judge noted that the complainant, Lt. Lastimoso, failed to submit a required verified complaint. Instead, a superior officer communicated that the complainant was no longer interested in pursuing the case, leading to a recommendation for dismissal. The Court found this failure to prosecute decisive.
On the merits, the Court found the judge’s explanation reasonable and consistent with judicial duty. His inquiry about the filing delay was a routine clarificatory question. More importantly, his insistence on personally conducting a preliminary examination before issuing an arrest warrant was a correct adherence to the constitutional requirement of determining probable cause personally by the judge. The Court inferred that the PC sergeant, possibly unfamiliar with proper procedure and concerned about his performance, might have misinterpreted or exaggerated the judge’s actions. However, the Court seized the opportunity to remind all judges to be circumspect in their remarks to avoid any misinterpretation that could cast doubt on their impartiality. Since the complainant failed to prove the charges, respondent Judge was entitled to be cleared.