A.M. No. 74-MJ. July 30, 1976. Salvador Lacson, Jr., complainant, vs. Ramon Posadas, Municipal Judge of Talisay, Negros Occidental, respondent.
FACTS

Complainant Salvador Lacson, Jr. charged Municipal Judge Ramon Posadas with ignorance of the law, partiality, and violation of the Election Code of 1971. The case was referred to an Executive Judge for investigation. The Investigating Judge found the charges of ignorance of the law and partiality to be without factual basis. However, he found respondent administratively liable for failing to comply with the mandatory procedure under Section 136 of the Election Code of 1971 in handling petitions for inclusion in the permanent list of voters.
The investigation revealed that Judge Posadas granted numerous petitions for electoral inclusion without requiring the petitioners to attach the necessary certificate from the Chairman or a member of the Board of Inspectors, as explicitly mandated by Section 136. This certificate was to attest that the petitioners had indeed applied for registration but were refused for lack of forms. Respondent also reset hearings for petitions, some filed on October 19, 1971, to be heard the very next morning, October 20, making it improbable for the Board of Inspectors to be properly notified. He admitted that if the petitioners were present and the Board was absent, he would consider the Board in default and grant the petition summarily. On appeal, many of these inclusion orders were subsequently dismissed.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Municipal Judge Ramon Posadas is administratively liable for his failure to adhere to the specific procedural requirements of Section 136 of the Election Code of 1971 in the disposition of petitions for electoral inclusion.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court emphasized the paramount importance of safeguarding the right of suffrage, which is the expression of the sovereign will. The statutory procedure in Section 136 is not a mere technicality but a crucial safeguard designed to ensure the integrity of the electoral list by verifying the identities of petitioners and the factual basis of their claims. By disregarding the requirement for a certificate from the Board of Inspectors and by proceeding hastily without ensuring proper notice for reset hearings, respondent Judge deprived the process of this essential verification mechanism. His method provided “no safeguard whatsoever against indiscriminate inclusion.”
The Court found that while the Investigating Judge concluded respondent acted in good faith and without improper motive, good faith is immaterial to the administrative infraction. The failure to follow a clear and mandatory legal procedure in matters of grave public interest constitutes a dereliction of duty. However, the Court noted that Presidential Decree No. 433 had granted a general amnesty for election law violations related to the 1971 elections, thereby relieving respondent of any criminal liability. Nevertheless, in the paramount public interest of maintaining judicial diligence and the sanctity of electoral processes, an administrative sanction was warranted. Respondent Judge was ADMONISHED to exercise greater care in observing legal provisions in his judicial duties and WARNED that any subsequent misconduct would be dealt with more severely.