G.R. No. A.M. No. 3210-MJ November 12, 1981
Martiniano O. De La Cruz, complainant, vs. Judge Jose P. De Leon, Municipal Court of Marilao, Bulacan, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Atty. Martiniano de la Cruz filed an administrative complaint against respondent Judge Jose P. de Leon for alleged miscarriage of justice. The complaint stemmed from the judge’s order dismissing Criminal Case No. 3412 for estafa against Emilia Biano. The complainant alleged that Biano defrauded him by falsely representing she had funds to pay for apartment accommodations, incurring unpaid rentals, and then surreptitiously abandoning the premises. Judge de Leon, after preliminary investigation, dismissed the case, ruling that any liability was purely civil in nature.
The case was referred for investigation to Executive Judge Roque A. Tamayo. His report revealed a pattern of conduct by the complainant. Atty. de la Cruz had been inserting clauses in his lease contracts, misleadingly labeled as “contracts of accommodations,” which stipulated that a tenant’s departure without payment constituted estafa under the Revised Penal Code. The investigation found the complainant had filed multiple similar criminal cases to coerce payment of unpaid rentals, effectively attempting to use the courts and the prosecutor’s office as collection agencies.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Jose P. de Leon committed a miscarriage of justice warranting administrative sanction for dismissing the estafa case against Emilia Biano.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the administrative complaint against Judge de Leon and instead sanctioned the complainant lawyer. The Court found no merit in the charge of miscarriage of justice. The legal logic is clear: the judge’s dismissal was a correct judicial determination that the complaint did not allege a criminal offense. Estafa under Article 315(2)(e) of the Revised Penal Code requires deceit or false pretense made prior to or simultaneous with the commission of the fraud. The alleged non-payment of rentals arising from a contract, even if the tenant later absconds, generally constitutes a breach of contract, creating a civil obligation, not a criminal one. The judge correctly recognized that converting such a contractual breach into a criminal case would misuse the penal system.
The investigation substantiated that the complainant was systematically abusing judicial processes by filing criminal charges to enforce collection of debts, an act condemned by the Court as relegating the courts to “glorified collecting agencies.” Therefore, the respondent judge’s act of dismissing the case was a proper exercise of judicial discretion to prevent such abuse, not an act of misconduct. Consequently, the Court absolved Judge de Leon and directed the Court Administrator to furnish the Solicitor General with records for a possible administrative case against Atty. de la Cruz for unethical conduct.