AM 45 Mj; (March, 1974) (Digest)
A.M. No. 45-MJ March 29, 1974
LEONARDO OLAIVAR, complainant, vs. MUNICIPAL JUDGE ADELAIDO O. SINGCO of Duero, Bohol, respondent.
FACTS
This administrative case stemmed from two criminal cases for “challenge to a duel” filed against complainant Leonardo Olaivar, a teacher, in the Municipal Court of Guindulman, Bohol. Respondent Judge Adelaido O. Singco was designated to try the cases after the local judge inhibited himself. During the scheduled hearing on May 16, 1972, Olaivar’s counsel was absent without prior notice or a motion for postponement. The private prosecutor then moved for reimbursement of the complainants’ expenses for attending court.
Respondent Judge admitted that he granted the motion and ordered Olaivar to pay P40.00 under threat of contempt. Furthermore, Olaivar, who was not a lawyer, requested a postponement or a brief wait for his counsel, explaining he would be helpless without legal assistance. The judge denied this request and compelled Olaivar to personally cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. The Executive Judge of Bohol, after investigation, recommended dismissing the complaint due to Olaivar’s desistance, but the Secretary of Justice had earlier recommended the judge’s forced resignation.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge Adelaido O. Singco committed oppression and gross abuse of discretion warranting administrative sanction.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court found the respondent judge administratively liable. The Court held that the judge’s acts were oppressive and without legal basis. Ordering the reimbursement of litigation expenses as costs during the trial, before any judgment was rendered and without determining if counsel’s absence was excusable, was premature and unjust. More egregiously, compelling a non-lawyer accused, who expressly admitted his incapacity, to cross-examine witnesses constituted a denial of his right to counsel and transformed the court into an instrument of oppression.
The Court rejected the judge’s justification of expediting case disposition as a license for abuse. While considering the investigating judge’s recommendation and noting the respondent might have been overzealous, the Court deemed the penalty of severe censure as commensurate. The Supreme Court severely censured Judge Singco and warned that a repetition would result in heavier sanctions, with the decision ordered entered into his record.