G.R. No. MTJ-02-1444 July 22, 2004
JORDAN P. OKTUBRE, complainant, vs. JUDGE RAMON P. VELASCO, Municipal Trial Court, Maasin, Southern Leyte, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Jordan P. Oktubre, attorney-in-fact for Peggy Louise D’Arcy, widow of Abraham Paler, filed an administrative complaint against respondent Judge Ramon P. Velasco, Abraham’s nephew. The dispute arose from the administration of the Paler building in Maasin City. After D’Arcy refused to extend the Judge’s stay in the building, respondent Judge, claiming to be a co-heir and administrator, directed tenants to remit rentals to his court office and sent intimidating letters to D’Arcy on court stationery. He also removed a vehicle owned by D’Arcy from the garage. When complainant, following D’Arcy’s instructions, retrieved the vehicle and removed one of its wheels to secure it, respondent Judge filed criminal complaints for Robbery and Malicious Mischief against complainant, and for Falsification against D’Arcy.
Respondent Judge personally issued warrants of arrest against complainant based solely on his own affidavits as the complaining witness. Complainant was arrested and detained for six hours before posting bail. The criminal cases were eventually dismissed by the Provincial Prosecutor for lack of merit, finding the complaints to be harassment arising from the property dispute.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge is administratively liable for Gross Misconduct and Gross Ignorance of the Law for issuing warrants of arrest based on complaints where he was the sole affiant and for using his office to further a personal interest.

RULING

Yes, respondent Judge is guilty of Gross Misconduct and Gross Ignorance of the Law, warranting dismissal from service. The Supreme Court emphasized that a judge is prohibited from conducting a preliminary investigation or issuing a warrant of arrest in a case where he is the complainant, as this constitutes a blatant violation of due process and judicial impartiality. Under the Rules of Court, a judge must personally examine the complainant and witnesses other than himself to determine probable cause. By acting on his own criminal complaints and using his judicial authority to cause the arrest of complainant, respondent Judge grossly ignored this fundamental legal procedure.
Furthermore, his actions demonstrated gross misconduct. He used his office and official letterhead to pursue a personal vendetta in a property dispute, sending threatening communications and leveraging his judicial position to harass the adverse party. This conduct eroded public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and neutrality. The Court found that his actions were not mere error but a conscious and malicious abuse of judicial authority for personal gain. Consequently, the Court ordered his DISMISSAL from service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and with prejudice to re-employment in any government branch.