G.R. No. A.M. No. RTJ-01-1642. March 6, 2002.
P/SUPT. SEVERINO CRUZ and FRANCISCO MONEDERO, complainants, vs. JUDGE PEDRO M. AREOLA and BRANCH CLERK OF COURT JANICE YULO-ANTERO, respondents.

FACTS

Complainants P/Supt. Severino Cruz and Francisco Monedero filed an administrative complaint against Judge Pedro M. Areola of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 85, Quezon City, and Branch Clerk of Court Janice Yulo-Antero for Ignorance of the Law in relation to Criminal Case No. Q-99-80446 for Estafa against Marilyn Carreon. The case originated from a resolution by the Office of the Ombudsman recommending the filing of an Information. Upon filing, the case was raffled to Branch 85. On January 19, 1999, the accused filed an Urgent Motion for Reinvestigation. Respondent Judge initially deemed the motion a “mere scrap of paper” for non-compliance with procedural rules and issued a Warrant of Arrest on January 25, 1999, which was released by respondent Branch Clerk of Court. However, on February 10, 1999, respondent Judge deferred the warrant’s implementation pending reinvestigation. On June 16, 1999, he granted the Motion for Reconsideration and directed a reinvestigation. The Office of the City Prosecutor, after reinvestigation, upheld the Ombudsman’s resolution and recommended trial. On September 20, 1999, the accused filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Suspend Proceedings to seek a petition for review with the Secretary of Justice. Respondent Judge granted this on September 27, 1999, suspending further proceedings. Complainants alleged these actions constituted ignorance of the law. In their Joint Comment, respondent Judge asserted that issuing a warrant is not ministerial but requires a personal determination of probable cause, while respondent Branch Clerk of Court claimed her duty to release signed orders is ministerial.

ISSUE

Whether the orders issued by respondent Judge and their release by respondent Branch Clerk of Court constitute ignorance of the law.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court dismissed the administrative complaint for lack of merit. The Court emphasized that under the 1987 Constitution, a judge must personally determine probable cause for issuing a warrant of arrest, which is a distinct function from the prosecutor’s preliminary investigation to determine sufficiency of evidence for trial. A judge is not bound solely by the prosecutor’s report and must exercise independent judgment. Respondent Judge’s actions—deferring the warrant, ordering reinvestigation, and suspending proceedings—were within his sound discretion to ensure a proper determination of probable cause and to prevent frustration of justice. There was no showing of abuse of discretion. As for respondent Branch Clerk of Court, her release of duly signed orders was a ministerial duty performed under the judge’s direction. The Court adopted the findings and recommendation of Investigating Justice Romeo A. Brawner, who concluded that respondents acted in accordance with law and judicial discretion.