G.R. No. MTJ-04-1521. July 27, 2004
Romeo B. Almojuela, Jr., complainant, vs. Judge Revelino M. Ringor and Amalia L. Directo, Clerk of Court, Municipal Trial Court, Balaoan, La Union, respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Romeo B. Almojuela, Jr., an accused in criminal cases before respondent Judge Revelino M. Ringor, filed an Omnibus Motion to Quash based on a waiver of complaint executed by the private offended party, Belinda Enriquez. On January 15, 2003, respondent Judge issued an Order granting the motion and dismissing the charge against Almojuela. Subsequently, on March 24, 2003, respondent Judge issued another Order cancelling and annulling his January 15 Order. He justified this by stating that Enriquez had later approached the court, claiming she was forced to sign the waiver, and he had therefore instructed his staff to withhold the release of the dismissal order. The complainant alleges this March 24 Order was irregular, issued after an ex parte communication with Enriquez, and after the motion to quash had already been granted. Respondent Clerk of Court Amalia L. Directo denied receiving any instruction to withhold the January 15 Order.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge is administratively liable for Gross Misconduct for his actions in issuing the March 24, 2003 Order cancelling his prior final order of dismissal.

RULING

Yes, respondent Judge is guilty of Gross Misconduct. The Supreme Court held that the January 15, 2003 Order granting the motion to quash was a final order that immediately became executory upon its issuance. A judge loses jurisdiction to alter, amend, or revoke a final order once it has been issued, except to correct clerical errors. By issuing the March 24 Order to nullify his prior final disposition based solely on the ex parte representations of the private complainant, respondent Judge committed an irregular and unjustified act that grossly violated procedural rules and elementary legal principles. This act constituted gross misconduct, defined as a transgression of established rules of action, particularly the Code of Judicial Conduct which mandates that a judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence. His attempt to retract a final order undermined the integrity of judicial processes and exhibited a lack of fidelity to the law. The Clerk of Court was exonerated as her release of the January 15 Order was a ministerial duty. For Gross Misconduct, respondent Judge was fined Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) and sternly warned.