A.M. No. 244-MJ. August 31, 1978. HILARION MANGARON, complainant, vs. JUAN L. BAGANO, respondent.
FACTS

Complainant Hilarion Mangaron, previously convicted by respondent Municipal Judge Juan L. Bagano for illegal possession of firearm, filed an administrative complaint alleging ignorance of the law, ineptitude, oppression, and serious irregularities. The core factual allegations stem from the handling of his appeal. The Court of First Instance (CFI) of Cebu issued an order dated December 4, 1968, dismissing Mangaron’s appeal and ordering the execution of the original judgment. Respondent Judge, upon being informed of this CFI order, had Mangaron arrested and detained on December 14, 1968, to execute the sentence, despite the CFI order not having become final, as the 15-day period for appeal had not lapsed. The CFI subsequently set aside its dismissal order on December 21, 1968. Respondent issued a release order on December 23, but complainant alleged it was not promptly served, prolonging his detention until January 2, 1969. Additional charges included that the judge campaigned to have his bondsmen withdraw and compelled him to perform personal labor.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Municipal Judge Juan L. Bagano should be held administratively liable for the charges of ignorance of the law, ineptitude, oppression, and serious irregularities.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the administrative complaint. On the charge of ignorance of the law for executing the non-final CFI order, the Court found respondent acted in good faith. The CFI order explicitly directed the remand of records “for the execution of judgment,” and the records were physically remanded by the CFI clerk of court. This created a reasonable, though erroneous, impression on the respondent that the order was immediately executory. His error was induced by the CFI clerk’s premature action, not by gross ignorance. Concerning the alleged ineptitude in the delayed service of the release order, documentary evidence showed respondent issued the order promptly upon receiving the CFI’s reconsideration. Any delay in service was attributable to the police officer tasked with delivery, a circumstance beyond the judge’s control, akin to the principle in San Pablo vs. Salvador. The charges of oppression and serious irregularities were not substantiated by convincing evidence. Therefore, absent proof of malice, gross ignorance, or willful misconduct, the respondent’s actions, while procedurally mistaken, did not rise to the level of an administrative offense warranting sanction.