AM MTJ 02 1402; (December, 2002) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.M. No. MTJ-02-1402 December 4, 2002
Abraham L. Mendova, complainant, vs. Crisanto B. Afable, Presiding Judge, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, San Julian-Sulat, Eastern Samar, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Abraham L. Mendova filed an administrative complaint against respondent Judge Crisanto B. Afable for ignorance of the law. The complaint stemmed from the judge’s dismissal of Criminal Case No. 2198-98 for slight physical injuries on the ground of prescription. The alleged offense occurred on February 15, 1998. Complainant filed a complaint with the Barangay on February 18, 1998, and after failed amicable settlements, filed the criminal case in respondent’s court on May 4, 1998. In his Decision dated November 3, 1998, respondent judge dismissed the case, ruling that the crime, a light offense prescribing in two months under the Revised Penal Code, had prescribed as the case was filed more than two months after its commission on February 15, 1998. Complainant alleged the judge ignored Section 410(c) of the Local Government Code, which interrupts the prescriptive period upon filing a complaint with the Punong Barangay. In his comment, respondent admitted his decision was wrong, attributing it to a “mental lapse” caused by a heavy workload. The Office of the Court Administrator found him guilty and recommended a fine.
ISSUE
Whether respondent judge is administratively liable for dismissing the criminal case on the ground of prescription.
RULING
No, the administrative complaint is dismissed. The Court ruled that an administrative complaint is not the proper remedy for every erroneous order or decision where judicial remedies like a motion for reconsideration or an appeal are available. Administrative sanctions may be imposed only where the error is gross, deliberate, malicious, or incurred with evident bad faith. In this case, complainant did not file a motion for reconsideration of the dismissal order, nor did the complaint allege any bad faith or malice on the part of the respondent judge. While respondent admitted a mistake, it may be considered an error of judgment, not ignorance of the law. Furthermore, the Court noted that the complainant failed to present proof of his receipt of the Barangay Certification to File Action, which is necessary to determine when the interrupted prescriptive period resumed. The respondent judge is, however, reminded to be more assiduous and circumspect in his judicial duties.