A.M. No. MTJ-00-1274. June 8, 2000.
Jepson Dichaves, complainant, vs. Judge Billy M. Apalit, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Jepson Dichaves filed five criminal cases for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 against Ramon Navarro based on dishonored checks. The accused, Navarro, subsequently filed a civil case for sum of money against third parties, alleging the checks were issued merely to guarantee their loan obligations to Dichaves. Based on this civil suit, Navarro moved to suspend the criminal proceedings, claiming a prejudicial question existed. Respondent Judge Apalit granted the suspension. The Court of Appeals later set aside this order, ruling no prejudicial question existed.
Upon the resumption of the criminal trial, Judge Apalit again granted Navarro’s motion to disqualify Dichaves’ private prosecutor, reasoning the civil action was already being litigated in the separate civil case. Ultimately, Judge Apalit acquitted Navarro, adopting the defense that the checks were issued only as a guarantee. Dichaves filed this administrative complaint, alleging gross ignorance of the law and manifest partiality evidenced by these three key actions: the suspension order, the disqualification of counsel, and the acquittal based on an invalid defense.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Apalit is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law and/or partiality in his handling of the B.P. Blg. 22 cases.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found Judge Apalit administratively liable. The legal logic is clear. First, his order suspending the criminal proceedings based on a prejudicial question was baseless. A prejudicial question requires that the issue in the civil case be determinative of the criminal action. Here, even if Navarro prevailed in his civil case against the third parties, it would not determine his criminal liability for issuing worthless checks. The law punishes the mere act of issuing a dishonored check, irrespective of whether it was issued as a guarantee. Second, disqualifying the private prosecutor was erroneous, as the civil liability ex delicto in the criminal case is distinct from any purely civil obligations between other parties. Third, his acquittal of Navarro, grounded solely on the checks being issued as a guarantee, directly contravened settled jurisprudence that such a purpose is not a valid defense under B.P. Blg. 22. While an isolated error may not incur liability, the pattern of rulings favoring the accused, all disregarding well-established law, demonstrated not just ignorance but partiality. Therefore, Judge Apalit was found guilty of partiality and grave abuse of discretion.