G.R. No. MTJ-05-1581. February 28, 2005.
Peter L. Sesbreño, complainant, vs. Judge Gloria B. Aglugub, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 2, San Pedro, Laguna, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Peter L. Sesbreño filed an administrative complaint against respondent Judge Gloria B. Aglugub for Gross Ignorance of the Law, Neglect of Duty, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Service. The complaint stemmed from the judge’s handling of consolidated criminal cases for Falsification, Grave Threats, and Usurpation of Authority (with an alleged violation of Republic Act No. 10 ) filed against several traffic officers. After a preliminary examination, respondent judge dismissed the Falsification and Grave Threats charges for lack of probable cause but set the Usurpation of Authority case for arraignment. Upon a subsequent manifestation by the complainant, the judge acknowledged an oversight in not resolving the R.A. No. 10 charge but dismissed it, finding no probable cause as the complaint failed to allege the required element of subversive activity. She then forwarded the records to the Provincial Prosecutor’s Office (PPO) for review, citing Rule 112, Sec. 6(b) of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
The complainant alleged the judge violated procedural rules by refusing to issue warrants of arrest against the accused and by failing to transmit her resolution to the Office of the Ombudsman within ten days. The respondent judge countered that the issuance of a warrant was discretionary and that forwarding the case to the PPO was proper, as it was a deputized Ombudsman prosecutor. She also accused the complainant’s counsel of falsification and ethical violations.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Gloria B. Aglugub is administratively liable for Gross Ignorance of the Law and Neglect of Duty based on her handling of the criminal complaints and her procedural rulings.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the complaint for lack of merit but ADMONISHED the respondent judge to be more circumspect. The Court found no gross ignorance of the law, as her actions were not motivated by bad faith, dishonesty, or a corrupt motive. On the procedural issues, the Court clarified that a judge’s duty to issue a warrant of arrest after finding probable cause in a preliminary investigation is ministerial. However, in this case, the judge conducted only a preliminary examination for the purpose of determining whether to issue a warrant, not a full preliminary investigation. Since she found no probable cause for the R.A. No. 10 charge, she was not obligated to issue a warrant. Her decision to forward the records to the PPO for review was also justified, as the PPO is empowered to act on cases under the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. While there was a lapse in not ensuring the records were ultimately forwarded to the Deputy Ombudsman as required by Administrative Order No. 8, this error did not rise to the level of gross ignorance warranting administrative sanction, absent a showing of bad faith. The Court emphasized that for liability to attach, an error must be gross, deliberate, and indicative of malice, which was not established here.