G.R. No. MTJ-93-874. March 14, 1995.
Augustus L. Momongan, Regional Director, DENR Region VIII, vs. Judge Rafael B. Omipon, MCTC, Hinunangan-Silago, Southern Leyte.

FACTS

On November 14, 1992, police apprehended Dionisio Golpe driving a truck loaded with illegally cut lumber. The truck and logs were impounded. A criminal complaint was filed only against Basilio Cabig, the alleged owner of the logs. After a preliminary investigation, respondent Judge Rafael B. Omipon found a prima facie case against Cabig but ordered the release of the truck, reasoning that its owner, Golpe, was not charged in the complaint and had a lesser participation, being a mere accessory who could be a state witness.
Regional Director Augustus L. Momongan of the DENR filed an administrative complaint against Judge Omipon. The complainant alleged that the order releasing the truck violated Presidential Decree No. 705 (The Revised Forestry Code), as amended, and related administrative orders. The DENR asserted that the confiscation and disposition of conveyances used in transporting illegal forest products fall under its exclusive administrative jurisdiction, not the court’s discretion, and the truck should have been turned over to the appropriate DENR office.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge committed gross ignorance of the law or abused his discretion in ordering the release of the truck used to transport illegally cut lumber.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court found respondent Judge administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law. The legal logic is clear and grounded on the explicit statutory mandate. Section 68-A of P.D. No. 705, as amended by Executive Order No. 277, unequivocally provides that conveyances used in the transport of illegal forest products are subject to confiscation and forfeiture in favor of the government. Crucially, the law vests the authority to order such confiscation and disposition exclusively in the Secretary of the DENR or his duly authorized representative.
The Judge’s order releasing the truck based on Golpe’s non-inclusion in the criminal complaint and his perceived role as a mere accessory constituted a blatant disregard of this specific provision. His discretion in the preliminary investigation is limited to determining probable cause for the criminal offense; it does not extend to adjudicating the administrative forfeiture of the instrumentality of the crime, which is a separate proceeding vested by law in the DENR. By usurping this administrative function, the Judge demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of the applicable law, which amounts to gross ignorance. The Court emphasized that judges are expected to keep abreast of basic legal principles, especially those as clear and categorical as the confiscation rules under the Forestry Code. His liability stands despite the subsequent approval of his disability retirement application.