G.R. No. A.M. No. MTJ-14-1839, July 22, 2015
ATTY. LUCITA E. MARCELA, Complainant, vs. JUDGE PELAGIA J. DALMACIO-JOAQUIN, President Judge, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 1, San Jose del Monte, Bulacan, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Atty. Lucita E. Marcelo, counsel for the accused in three criminal cases, failed to appear at a hearing on January 21, 2011, due to illness. She informed the prosecutor’s office via phone call and instructed her client’s sister to notify the court. Respondent Judge Pelagia J. Dalmacio-Joaquin issued an order directing complainant to show cause why she should not be cited for contempt. Complainant filed a “Compliance and Manifestation” with a medical certificate. During a subsequent hearing, the judge shifted focus to complainant’s failure to indicate her Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) compliance details in the pleading. Complainant argued she believed she was exempt as a retired prosecutor under DOJ Circular No. 50. The judge ordered her to submit an exemption certificate within 10 days (extended to 15 days). Complainant sent a letter to the clerk of court explaining the delay in obtaining the certificate, but it was returned. On April 20, 2011, the judge issued an order expunging the Compliance and Manifestation, citing complainant in contempt, and imposing a ₱2,000 fine for failure to comply with the show-cause order and submit the exemption certificate. Complainant’s motion for reconsideration was denied. The judge later issued a warrant for her arrest for non-payment of the fine, which was lifted after complainant paid. In another instance, the judge expunged complainant’s explanation for absence in other cases and fined her again for contempt. Complainant filed an administrative complaint for grave abuse of authority, grave misconduct, and violation of RA 6713. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found respondent judge liable for grave abuse of authority, recommending a ₱5,000 fine. The Supreme Court adopted the OCA’s findings but modified the penalty.

ISSUE

Whether respondent judge is guilty of grave abuse of authority.

RULING

Yes, respondent judge is guilty of grave abuse of authority. The Supreme Court held that the judge’s act of expunging complainant’s Compliance and Manifestation solely for lacking MCLE details, without considering the valid explanation for absence (supported by a medical certificate), deprived complainant of due process. The judge strictly applied Bar Matter No. 1922 (on MCLE disclosure) despite complainant’s reasonable belief in exemption and efforts to comply. This constituted an unjustified use of authority, warranting administrative sanction. However, the Court found the penalty of reprimand appropriate, as the judge invoked Bar Matter No. 1922, albeit strictly. The Court issued a stern warning against repetition. The charges of grave misconduct and violation of RA 6713 were not addressed, as the OCA focused solely on grave abuse of authority. Respondent judge’s allegation of ill-will by complainant was unsubstantiated. Complainant was reminded to file proper pleadings directly with the court.