G.R. No. A.M. No. MTJ-00-1323. August 22, 2002.
Judge Pedro B. Cabatingan Sr. (Ret.), complainant, vs. Judge Celso A. Arcueno, MCTC, Cataingan, Masbate, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Judge Pedro B. Cabatingan Sr., acting as counsel for accused Benito Bucado in Criminal Case No. 4877-PVC for Illegal Fishing, filed an administrative complaint against respondent Judge Celso A. Arcueno for gross ignorance of the law. After a preliminary investigation, respondent judge found a prima facie case and issued a warrant of arrest with bail set at ₱50,000. The accused posted a property bond, but respondent judge refused to accept it, contending he had lost jurisdiction because the records had already been forwarded to the Office of the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor for review. Respondent later approved the bail bond on November 20, 1998. In his defense, respondent initially claimed loss of jurisdiction and lack of attached tax declaration for the property bond. Later, in a Manifestation with Motion to Dismiss, he argued that complainant, as notary public and counsel, violated Section 10, Rule 114 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure by arrogating judicial powers. Respondent also submitted a Joint Motion to Dismiss signed by both parties, claiming amicable settlement.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Celso A. Arcueno is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law for refusing to approve the bail bond posted by the accused.

RULING

Yes, respondent judge is guilty of gross ignorance of the law. The Supreme Court affirmed the Office of the Court Administrator’s findings but modified the penalty. The Court held that under Section 17(c), Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Court, any court in the place where a person is held in custody may grant bail, even if the records have been transmitted for review to the prosecutor’s office. Respondent’s refusal to approve the bail bond on jurisdictional grounds demonstrated ignorance of this elementary rule, constituting gross ignorance of the law. Judges are expected to maintain professional competence and mastery of basic legal principles. The Court rejected respondent’s alternative justifications as afterthoughts and emphasized that administrative complaints cannot be automatically dismissed by mere withdrawal or settlement between parties, as public interest in maintaining judicial integrity prevails. Notably, respondent had a prior infraction in Gimeno v. Arcueno Sr. (250 SCRA 376), where he was fined for ignorance of the law. Considering this second offense, a heavier penalty was warranted. Respondent was fined ₱15,000 and sternly warned that repetition would be dealt with more severely.