G.R. No. A.M. No. 61-MJ July 28, 1977
DOMINADOR TARECTECAN, complainant, vs. MUNICIPAL JUDGE PEDRO T. CRISTOBAL of Mabini, Pangasinan, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Dominador Tarectecan filed an administrative complaint for misconduct against respondent Municipal Judge Pedro T. Cristobal. The charge stemmed from the judge’s actions in an estafa case filed by his own son against Tarectecan. Respondent Judge proceeded to act on the complaint, conducting the preliminary examination and issuing a warrant of arrest against Tarectecan, who was consequently jailed for four days until he could post bail. Only after the arrest and detention did Judge Cristobal disqualify himself from the case.
The investigation by Judge Gregorio A. Legaspi of the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan confirmed these factual allegations, which respondent Judge admitted during the hearing before the Supreme Court. The Court also brought to his attention a relevant precedent, Administrative Order No. 248, which involved the removal of a judge for similarly acting on cases involving a close relative, highlighting the grave impropriety of such conduct.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Pedro T. Cristobal is administratively liable for misconduct for handling a criminal complaint filed by his son and issuing a warrant of arrest against the accused before disqualifying himself.

RULING

Yes, the respondent Judge committed serious misconduct. The Supreme Court found his actions indefensible, drawing a direct parallel to the precedent set in the case of Judge Rabago, who was removed from office. In that case, the judge was sanctioned for conducting a preliminary investigation and issuing warrants of arrest in criminal cases filed by his son-in-law, whom he had previously represented as counsel. The Supreme Court in that ruling condemned such conduct as a gross abuse of judicial power, motivated by improper motives, rendering the judge unfit for office.
While respondent Judge Cristobal attempted to distinguish his case by claiming good faith and an absence of the political harassment present in the Rabago case, the Court found this distinction unavailing. The core violation remains the same: a judge must avoid any appearance of partiality, especially in cases involving immediate family members. By acting on his son’s complaint and issuing a coercive process that led to the complainant’s imprisonment, Judge Cristobal blatantly violated this fundamental ethical standard, exhibiting a lack of the cold neutrality required of a judicial officer. However, the Court noted that Judge Cristobal had already resigned, and his resignation had been accepted by the President prior to this resolution. Furthermore, an additional allegation regarding the fabrication of the estafa case was found to be without merit. Consequently, the administrative complaint was dismissed for being moot and academic.