G.R. No. A.M. No. MTJ-98-1166 December 4, 1998
ANDRES GUILLEN, EULALIO GUILLEN, VICENTE CID, and JIMMY BAYAG, complainants, vs. JUDGE APRONIANO B. NICOLAS, Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Piddig-Solsona-Carasi, Ilocos Norte, respondent.

FACTS

Complainants charged respondent Judge Aproniano B. Nicolas with gross ignorance of law, gross incompetence, and evident partiality concerning five criminal cases where they were the offended parties. The cases, filed in December 1994, involved charges of Slander by Deed, Malicious Mischief, Direct Assault, and Resistance and Disobedience to a Person in Authority against Isidro Jacinto and others. Respondent Judge arraigned the accused on 16 March 1995 without issuing warrants for their arrest. Complainants filed an Urgent Motion for Issuance of Warrant of Arrest on 10 July 1995, which was denied, though the Judge required bail bonds initially set at P1,000 each, later reduced to P500 per accused upon motion. On 29 August 1996, respondent Judge acquitted all accused except in one case, convicting Isidro Jacinto of slander by deed. Complainants alleged evident partiality, citing that respondent Judge visited the accused’s house with the accused’s counsel and was a business partner with the accused in a fertilizer lending venture. Respondent Judge defended his actions, stating that four cases fell under the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure where arrest was not necessary, and he did not issue a warrant for the direct assault case because complainants failed to appear for preliminary examination. He denied the allegations of partiality and business partnership, claiming the complaint was filed out of harassment by the complainants’ lawyer who was disappointed with losing the cases.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law, evident partiality, and violation of judicial conduct in handling the criminal cases and his association with an accused.

RULING

Yes, respondent Judge is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found respondent Judge guilty of gross ignorance of the law for applying the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure to the four criminal cases, as they were necessarily related to Criminal Case No. 3164-P for direct assault, which was subject to ordinary procedure, making the summary rule inapplicable. His failure to issue a warrant of arrest in the direct assault case, despite having set it for arraignment and trial, demonstrated ignorance of the requirement to issue a warrant upon finding probable cause. He also displayed gross ignorance by setting the direct assault case for preliminary investigation, as it was cognizable by the MCTC, not the RTC. The Court found evident partiality in his acquittal of the accused in two malicious mischief cases, which was inconsistent with the evidence and suggested bias, potentially influenced by his business interactions with the accused. Furthermore, he violated Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Circular No. 1-90 by notarizing promissory notes for private individuals, involving himself in private business. The penalty imposed was a six-month suspension without pay and a fine of P10,000, with a warning for future offenses.