AM MTJ 01 1382; (November, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. MTJ-01-1382; November 16, 2001
Mario W. Chilagan, Sr. vs. Acting Presiding Judge Emelina L. Cattiling, 3rd MCTC Alfonso Lista-Aguinaldo, Mayoyao, Ifugao
FACTS
Complainant Mario Chilagan filed an administrative case against respondent Judge Emelina Cattiling for Gross Ignorance of the Law and Grave Abuse of Authority concerning three cases. In Civil Case No. III-00-91, complainant alleged the judge issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and later a preliminary injunction without proper notice, hearing, or a valid bond. He further claimed that despite his perfection of an appeal, the judge issued a writ of execution and ordered demolition. In Criminal Case No. III-96-353, complainant, a relative of the victim, charged that the judge improperly conducted a preliminary investigation, downgrading the charge from murder to homicide through reckless imprudence and recommending a low bail, despite the presence of a prosecutor. In Civil Case No. III-98-74, complainant alleged the judge issued a restraining order without a notice of hearing and approved a property as an injunction bond irregularly.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge Emelina L. Cattiling is administratively liable for Gross Ignorance of the Law and Grave Abuse of Authority based on the allegations in the three cited cases.
RULING
The Court found respondent liable only for her action in the criminal case and dismissed the other charges. Regarding Civil Case No. III-00-91, the judge’s narration of events, including service of summons and a hearing for the preliminary injunction, belied the claims of irregularity. The execution pending appeal was deemed proper as complainant failed to prove he filed the necessary bond and deposit to stay execution as required by the Rules. For Civil Case No. III-98-74, the allegations were unsubstantiated, hazy, and complainant was not a party thereto, warranting no further investigation.
However, in Criminal Case No. III-96-353, the judge was authorized to conduct the preliminary investigation under the Rules of Court. Her error lay in amending the complaint’s designation from murder to homicide through reckless imprudence. The Court reiterated that a municipal judge’s role in a preliminary investigation is only to determine if the evidence supports a prima facie case, not to alter the crime’s character. The power to amend a complaint substantively before plea rests solely with the prosecuting officer. For this act, which demonstrated ignorance of procedural boundaries, the Court imposed a fine of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00). The other charges were dismissed for lack of merit.