A.M. No. RTJ-04-1852. June 3, 2004. Wilfredo M. Talag, complainant, vs. Judge Amor A. Reyes, Regional Trial Court, Manila, Branch 21, respondent.
FACTS

Complainant Wilfredo Talag was charged with Estafa. Upon the filing of the Information in respondent Judge Amor Reyes’s court, Talag filed an Omnibus Motion to defer the arrest warrant and to remand the case to the prosecutor, pending his motion for reconsideration with that office. Complainant alleges that the judge issued a warrant of arrest on May 23, 2002, without first resolving his pending motions. He secured a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) from the Court of Appeals, which later dismissed his petition. Subsequently, the judge issued an alias warrant. Complainant also failed to attend his arraignment twice, leading to a bench warrant, which was later lifted. He claims the court sent notices to an old address despite a filed Notice of Change of Address, and that the judge exhibited bias by denying his motions and making hostile comments.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Amor A. Reyes is administratively liable for partiality, grave abuse of authority, and oppression in handling Criminal Case No. 02-201852.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the complaint for lack of merit. On the issuance of the arrest warrant, the Court found no irregularity. A judge may issue a warrant upon finding probable cause based on the prosecutor’s resolution and the information’s supporting documents. The pendency of a motion for reconsideration with the prosecutor or a motion to defer in court does not automatically bar the issuance of a warrant, as the judge must independently assess the evidence before her. The subsequent alias warrant was also proper after the Court of Appeals’ TRO expired and the petition was dismissed, removing any legal impediment.
Regarding the missed arraignments, the Court noted that the filed Notice of Change of Address pertained only to counsel’s residence, not the complainant’s. Thus, sending notices to Talag’s last known address was not improper. Furthermore, the produce orders for the hearings were correctly sent to his bondsman, who had the duty to ensure his appearance under the Rules of Court. On the charge of partiality, the Court emphasized that bias cannot be presumed and must be proven by substantial evidence. The discretion to grant or deny motions, including one for inhibition, is primarily within the judge’s sound discretion. Complainant’s bare allegations, without convincing proof of malicious intent or clear disregard of law, failed to meet the required burden of proof in administrative cases.