G.R. No. MTJ-98-1167. March 31, 2000
Emily M. Sandoval, complainant, vs. Judge Felicisimo S. Garin, MCTC, Atimonan-Plaridel, Quezon, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Emily Sandoval was charged with estafa before the MCTC presided by Judge Garin. The complaint alleged she borrowed money in February 1994. Judge Garin, upon receiving the complaint on March 27, 1996, immediately issued an order setting a preliminary examination for the next day, March 28. On that same date, he issued a warrant for Sandoval’s arrest and later, on April 2, a Hold Departure Order. The notice for the preliminary hearing was reportedly received by the Cuenca Post Office only on April 1, 1996, days after the warrant was issued. Sandoval, who was in Hong Kong, lost a job opportunity due to the hold order. The case was later dismissed by the Provincial Prosecutor. Sandoval filed an administrative complaint, alleging the judge issued the warrant and hold order without proper preliminary investigation and due process.
Judge Garin defended his actions, asserting he complied with procedural rules by sending notices and that the accused’s failure to submit a counter-affidavit did not bar issuing a warrant. He argued any irregularity was waived when Sandoval posted bail. He also disclaimed responsibility for the Immigration Bureau’s implementation of the hold order. Sandoval rebutted that she could not have received notice as she was abroad, and pointed out inconsistencies, including that the complaining witness was allegedly overseas when her sworn statement was taken.

ISSUE

Whether Judge Garin is administratively liable for Abuse of Discretion and Gross Ignorance of the Law in issuing a warrant of arrest and a Hold Departure Order.

RULING

Yes, Judge Garin is guilty. The Supreme Court found his actions constituted abuse of discretion and gross ignorance of procedural law. The legal logic centers on the violation of fundamental due process and specific rules on preliminary investigation. Under Rule 112, while a judge may issue a warrant if probable cause is found and there is a necessity to place the accused in custody, this must follow a proper examination. The judge’s haste was indefensible; he issued the arrest warrant on March 28, 1996, before the postal receipt showed the accused received notice (April 1). This deprived Sandoval of a meaningful opportunity to be heard and submit counter-evidence before the warrant issuance.
The Court rejected the judge’s defense of waiver by posting bail, as the administrative charge concerns the propriety of his judicial actions, not the accused’s subsequent remedies. His claim of lacking control over the hold order’s implementation does not absolve him; issuing the order was a judicial act requiring careful discretion, which he exercised with undue haste without adequate basis. The sequence of events demonstrated a reckless disregard for basic procedural safeguards, amounting to gross ignorance of the law. Consequently, the Court imposed a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) with a stern warning.