AM 89 270; (July, 1993) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.M. No. MTJ-89-270 and A.M. No. MTJ-92-637 July 5, 1993
Thelma Arcenio and Margarita Ponting, complainants, vs. Judge Virginia Pagorogon, respondent. (A.M. No. MTJ-89-270) and Office of the Court Administrator, complainant, vs. Judge Virginia Pagorogon, respondent. (A.M. No. MTJ-92-637)
FACTS
These are two consolidated administrative complaints against Municipal Trial Court Judge Virginia Pagorogon of San Jose del Monte, Bulacan.
In A.M. No. MTJ-89-270, complainants Thelma Arcenio and Margarita Ponting were accused of Illegal Squatting. Respondent judge issued warrants for their arrest after a preliminary examination. Complainants filed bail bonds and were ordered to file counter-affidavits. They failed to comply by the deadline but filed a Motion for Extension on the last day. Respondent judge denied the motion as moot because she had already issued an Order that morning forwarding the records to the Provincial Fiscal, citing the accused’s failure to submit witnesses. Complainants later filed counter-affidavits and a Motion for Reconsideration, which was allegedly denied. They filed an administrative complaint for gross ignorance of the law, grave abuse of discretion, and acting in excess of jurisdiction, alleging the arrest warrant was based on an inapplicable law and issued with undue haste.
In A.M. No. MTJ-92-637, an anonymous complaint alleged respondent judge abused her authority regarding a vehicle (a jeepney) used as evidence in a robbery case. After the case was forwarded to the Provincial Fiscal, the vehicle remained at the municipal building. Respondent judge, after seeking advice from other officials, took possession of the jeep in March 1989. She had it towed, repaired, repainted from black and white to red, and provided new batteries, spending her own money. Her brother maintained and used the jeep. Respondent judge officially turned over the vehicle to the Provincial Fiscal only in February 1992, after the investigation began. An investigation revealed the vehicle’s sticker was falsified, though there was no evidence it was registered in her brother’s name.
ISSUE
1. In A.M. No. MTJ-89-270: Whether respondent judge is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law, grave abuse of discretion, and acting in excess of jurisdiction in handling the Illegal Squatting case.
2. In A.M. No. MTJ-92-637: Whether respondent judge is administratively liable for gross misconduct for her handling and personal use of a vehicle in custodia legis.
RULING
1. In A.M. No. MTJ-89-270, the Court DISMISSED the complaint for lack of merit. The Court found that respondent judge complied with the procedure for preliminary examination under the Rules of Criminal Procedure. Her finding of probable cause was not based solely on sworn statements but on her own searching questions. An error in judgment, if any, does not automatically constitute gross ignorance of the law. The denial of the Motion for Extension filed on the last day was within her discretion, and the act of forwarding the records prior to ruling on it did not constitute undue haste or abuse of discretion.
2. In A.M. No. MTJ-92-637, the Court found respondent judge GUILTY of GROSS MISCONDUCT. The Court held that her actions—taking possession of the evidence vehicle, having it repaired and repainted, allowing her brother to use it, and failing to turn it over promptly—demonstrated an intention to use and benefit from property in custodia legis. This constituted a transgression of established rules of action and unlawful behavior. Her actions violated the Code of Judicial Conduct, which requires a judge to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. By exploiting her official position for personal benefit, she showed herself unfit for the judiciary.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
Respondent Judge Virginia Pagorogon is ordered DISMISSED from service with forfeiture of all benefits except accrued leave credits, with prejudice to reinstatement or reappointment to any public office, including government-owned or controlled corporations. The complaint in A.M. No. MTJ-89-270 is dismissed.