A.M. No. MTJ-04-1537; March 25, 2004
ARTEMIO SABATIN, complainant, vs. JUDGE EFREN B. MALLARE, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, NATIVIDAD-LLANERA, NUEVA ECIJA, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Artemio Sabatin was charged with illegal possession of firearms based on a search warrant. He alleged that Search Warrant No. 017-N-2000 was originally issued by respondent Judge Efren B. Mallare against his brother, Pedrito Sabatin. Police officers allegedly altered the warrant by erasing “Pedrito” and writing “Artemio” to justify the search of the complainant’s home. Upon discovering the warrant was issued by Judge Mallare in his capacity as Acting Presiding Judge of the RTC, Branch 30, Cabanatuan City—a court where he did not preside—the complainant filed a motion to quash. Judge Federico Fajardo, Jr., the actual presiding judge of RTC Branch 30, returned the motion, noting he did not issue the warrant and that only the Executive Judge was authorized to issue warrants for illegal firearms. Judge Mallare eventually granted the motion to quash and dismissed the case, admitting the warrant was issued against Pedrito, not Artemio.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Efren B. Mallare is administratively liable for issuing a search warrant without authority and for dishonesty in the subsequent administrative proceedings.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found Judge Mallare administratively liable for gross inefficiency and dishonesty. The legal logic is anchored on the judge’s violation of procedural rules and ethical standards. First, Judge Mallare issued a search warrant for illegal possession of firearms despite lacking jurisdiction. Under the rules, only Executive Judges of the Regional Trial Court are authorized to issue such warrants. By issuing the warrant, he exhibited gross ignorance of this basic procedural mandate. Second, he demonstrated dishonesty during the administrative investigation. He initially denied issuing the warrant, but his own subsequent order quashing it explicitly admitted he issued it against Pedrito Sabatin. This contradiction constitutes dishonesty, undermining judicial integrity. Furthermore, he caused undue delay by failing to promptly resolve the motion to quash for over four months, violating the constitutional mandate for speedy disposition of cases. The Court emphasized that judges must adhere strictly to the law and maintain professional competence. Their conduct must be beyond reproach to preserve public trust in the judiciary. For these infractions, Judge Mallare was fined Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P15,000).