A.M. No. MTJ-99-1238. January 24, 2003. ENGR. EDGARDO R. TORCENDE, complainant, vs. JUDGE AGUSTIN T. SARDIDO, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Koronadal City, South Cotabato, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Engr. Edgardo R. Torcende was the accused in two Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 cases. One case was transferred to respondent Judge Agustin T. Sardido’s court after R.A. No. 7691 expanded MTC jurisdiction. At a hearing, Torcende and his counsel arrived late. Respondent judge ordered Torcende’s arrest and bail cancellation and required his counsel to explain why he should not be cited for contempt. This order was later recalled. Subsequently, respondent denied Torcende’s Motion to Quash. At another hearing, Torcende appeared without counsel and filed an Omnibus Motion. Respondent denied the motion for lack of proper notice and fined the counsel. Torcende was also ordered to reimburse the private complainant’s expenses.
Torcende filed an administrative complaint alleging serious misconduct, oppression, falsification, violation of constitutional rights, and manifest partiality. He specifically claimed the preliminary investigation was defective, the judge wrongfully took cognizance of the case, and the order imposing fines and reimbursement was falsified and oppressive. Respondent judge defended his actions, asserting he conducted a proper preliminary investigation, the case was properly remanded, and the sanctions were justified due to counsel’s habitual filing of motions without proper notice.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge Agustin T. Sardido is administratively liable for the acts complained of by Engr. Edgardo R. Torcende.
RULING
Yes, respondent judge is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found that while the judge’s actions in recalling the arrest order and reinstating the bail demonstrated judiciousness, his subsequent imposition of a fine on the counsel and an order for the accused to reimburse the private complainant’s expenses constituted gross ignorance of the law and procedure. A judge cannot compel an accused to pay litigation expenses of the private complainant; such an order is a patent violation of procedural rules and basic legal principles. This act, coupled with a pattern of intemperate behavior and undue harshness in his orders, displayed a lack of the restraint, sobriety, and impartiality required of a magistrate.
The Court emphasized that judges must be embodiments of competence, integrity, and independence. Their language and conduct must always be guarded and measured to preserve public confidence in the judiciary. Respondent’s actions fell short of this standard. Considering the transgression and his previous administrative record, the Court adopted the Office of the Court Administrator’s recommendation with modification. Respondent Judge Agustin T. Sardido was found guilty of gross ignorance of the law and fined Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00), with a stern warning that a repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely.