G.R. No. MTJ-98-1173 December 15, 1998
CARLITOS D. LAZO, complainant, vs. JUDGE ANTONIO V. TIONG, Municipal Trial Court, Bolinao, Pangasinan, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Carlitos D. Lazo is the private complainant in Criminal Case No. 4384 for falsification and use of falsified document against Danilo D. Lazo, assigned to respondent Judge Antonio V. Tiong. The complainant alleged that: (1) the respondent judge scheduled the arraignment on a Thursday, knowing the trial prosecutor was only available on Fridays, causing the cancellation and wasting complainant’s time and effort; (2) the warrant of arrest was not promptly served on the accused until the prosecutor called attention to it; and (3) the respondent judge did not inhibit himself from the case for two months despite being related within the fourth degree of affinity to the accused (the accused’s wife is the judge’s first cousin). In his comment, the respondent judge stated that the scheduling of the arraignment on a Thursday was done by the Clerk of Court without his knowledge, as he delegated such administrative tasks. He explained that the accused, a government employee, promptly posted bail upon the warrant’s issuance. Regarding inhibition, he claimed he initially delayed to potentially mediate a settlement between the two brothers, and he eventually issued an order of self-inhibition on January 3, 1997.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Antonio V. Tiong is administratively liable for grave misconduct and abuse of authority concerning the scheduling of the arraignment, the service of the warrant, and his failure to timely inhibit himself from the case.

RULING

The Court found the respondent judge administratively liable for undue delay in inhibiting himself from the case. The Court held that while delegating the scheduling of cases to the Clerk of Court is permissible as an administrative function, and there was no showing of bad faith in the issuance and service of the warrant of arrest, the judge’s failure to promptly inhibit himself was improper. The respondent judge was related within the fourth degree of affinity to the accused, a mandatory ground for inhibition under the Rules of Court. His justification that he delayed inhibition to facilitate a settlement between the brothers was not acceptable, as he should have recused himself without undue delay after it became clear a settlement was unlikely. A two-month delay was unreasonable. However, as there was no showing of malice or corrupt motive, the appropriate penalty was a reprimand. The Court REPRIMANDED Judge Antonio V. Tiong with a WARNING that repetition of the same or similar act would be dealt with more severely.