A.M. No. 297-MJ September 30, 1975
AVELINA SERAFIN, complainant, vs. MUNICIPAL JUDGE SANTIAGO LINDAYAG, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Avelina Serafin filed an administrative complaint against Municipal Judge Santiago Lindayag of Guiguinto, Bulacan, for capriciously admitting a criminal complaint for estafa against her, leading to her wrongful arrest and detention. The criminal complaint, filed by the local chief of police on behalf of creditors Carmelito and Corazon Mendoza, alleged that Serafin failed to pay a debt of P1,500.00. Despite an initial investigation by an Executive Judge recommending exoneration after Serafin moved to withdraw her complaint, the Supreme Court, upon the case’s transfer following the 1973 Constitution, ordered a new investigation given the gravity of the documentary evidence.
The investigation revealed that the sworn complaint and supporting statements solely recited a simple loan transaction and Serafin’s subsequent non-payment. The notes from the preliminary examination conducted by Judge Lindayag confirmed the transaction was a loan extended because Serafin was considered a friend and a good person, with the creditors’ grievance being merely her failure to repay. Nevertheless, Judge Lindayag admitted the complaint, found probable cause, and issued a warrant for Serafin’s arrest on July 22, 1971, leading to her arrest that Saturday, July 25.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Municipal Judge Santiago Lindayag is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law and dereliction of duty in admitting a criminal complaint for estafa and issuing an arrest warrant based solely on an allegation of non-payment of a debt.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent judge administratively liable and ordered his dismissal. The Court held that the judge grossly failed in his duties. The complaint and evidence on their face showed no vestige of the essential elements of estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, such as deceit or abuse of confidence, but merely detailed a civil obligation from an unpaid loan. It is elementary that non-payment of a debt is not a criminal act. The judge’s duty was to dismiss the complaint outright. By recklessly finding probable cause and issuing the arrest warrant, he enabled the use of judicial process for harassment. His subsequent attempt to exculpate himself by submitting a purported amended complaint, which the Court found to be a spurious afterthought, demonstrated unfitness and reprehensible conduct worse than the original charge. His actions constituted gross ignorance of basic legal principles and a betrayal of his office’s fundamental duties to administer justice properly and protect individuals from unwarranted prosecution.