G.R. No. MTJ-04-1556. March 31, 2005.
Purita Lim, Complainant, vs. Judge Cesar M. Dumlao, Municipal Trial Court, San Mateo, Isabela, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Purita Lim charged respondent Judge Cesar M. Dumlao with Gross Ignorance of the Law and Grave Abuse of Authority. The complaint alleged that the judge approved a bail bond for an accused, Herman A. Medina, who was detained by virtue of a warrant issued by a different court, the Regional Trial Court of Santiago City, Branch 35. Complainant further averred that respondent judge had a pattern of approving bail bonds for cases outside his territorial jurisdiction and issuing defective search warrants for implementation outside his jurisdiction, which were subsequently quashed by other courts for lack of probable cause and failure to comply with procedural requirements.
The Supreme Court, through the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), required respondent judge to comment on the complaint. Despite receiving the order and subsequent tracers, the judge obstinately failed to file his comment. The OCA’s memorandum also noted that respondent judge had been previously charged in several other administrative cases, some of which resulted in fines for similar infractions.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Cesar M. Dumlao is administratively liable for Gross Ignorance of the Law and Grave Abuse of Authority, and for his failure to comply with the Supreme Court’s directive to file his comment.

RULING

Yes, respondent judge is administratively liable. On the substantive charge, the Court found the judge guilty of Gross Ignorance of the Law for approving bail bonds for accused persons detained outside his court’s territorial jurisdiction. Section 17, Rule 114 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure explicitly states that if an accused is arrested in a place other than where the case is pending, bail may be filed with any Regional Trial Court judge of that place, or if none is available, with any lower court judge therein. The criminal case against Medina was pending in Santiago City, and his arrest was effected there. Respondent judge, presiding in San Mateo, had no authority to accept the bail bond, demonstrating a fundamental disregard for clear procedural rules.
Furthermore, the judge’s unjustified failure to file his comment on the administrative complaint despite repeated directives from the Court constitutes gross misconduct and insubordination. This failure is indicative of a recalcitrant character and disrespect for lawful orders. Considering his prior administrative record and the need to uphold judicial discipline, the Court imposed a penalty more severe than the OCA’s fine recommendation. Respondent Judge Cesar M. Dumlao was found GUILTY and SUSPENDED from office for six (6) months without pay and benefits. He was also FINED Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) for his obstinate failure to file the required comment.