AM MTJ 01 1369; (September, 2001) (Digest)
A.M. No. MTJ-01-1369. September 20, 2001. GUILLERMA D. CABAÑERO, complainant, vs. JUDGE ANTONIO K. CAÑON, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, HINATUAN-TAGBINA, HINATUAN, SURIGAO DEL SUR, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Guillerma D. Cabañero charged Judge Antonio K. Cañon with partiality, issuance of unjust interlocutory orders, and grave abuse of discretion concerning Criminal Case No. 4036-H for qualified theft against her son, Jessie Cabañero. She alleged that during the preliminary investigation, the judge asked leading questions to implicate her. Subsequently, the judge issued a warrant for her arrest as a principal by inducement, despite her not being named as a respondent in the criminal complaint filed by the chief of police. She was arrested, detained, and required to post a P30,000.00 bail for her release, the same amount imposed on her son.
Respondent judge died on April 24, 2000, while the administrative case was pending. He defended his actions by asserting his discretion to add respondents and determine their participation, and to set bail.
ISSUE
Whether the administrative complaint against the respondent judge survives his death, and if so, whether he is administratively liable.
RULING
Yes, the complaint survives. The Court ruled that the death of a respondent judge does not automatically extinguish an administrative proceeding filed during his lifetime. The Court retains jurisdiction to resolve the complaint to preserve the integrity of the judiciary and to impose appropriate sanctions, which may be satisfied from his remaining benefits.
On the merits, the charge of partiality was dismissed for lack of concrete evidence. The allegations of unjust interlocutory orders were deemed a judicial, not an administrative, remedy. However, the Court found respondent guilty of grave abuse of discretion and gross ignorance of the law. First, he unlawfully ordered the arrest of the complainant, who was not an accused in the criminal complaint, misinterpreting his authority under the Rules of Court. Second, he imposed excessive bail. The Bail Bond Guide recommended P24,000.00 for the alleged theft amount (P3,191.40), yet he set it at P30,000.00. His failure to observe this basic legal standard constituted gross ignorance. Accordingly, the Court imposed a fine of P5,000.00, deductible from his retirement benefits.