A.M. No. RTJ-04-1885. November 17, 2004. STATE PROSECUTOR PABLO FORMARAN III, ATTY. FELINO M. GANAL and KANEMITSU YAMAOKA, complainants, vs. JUDGE MARIVIC TRABAJO-DARAY, Regional Trial Court, Branch 36, General Santos City, respondent.
FACTS

This administrative case stemmed from respondent judge’s handling of Criminal Case No. 13280 for estafa through falsification. The case involved several accused, some of whom were subject to a hold departure order. While the case was assigned to Acting Presiding Judge Antonio Lubao, who was on leave, respondent Judge Marivic Trabajo-Daray, as pairing judge, acted on an accused’s “2nd Urgent Motion to Resolve Pending Motion for Reconsideration to Lift Hold Departure Order.” The motion alleged an urgent need for the accused to travel to the United States for his son’s medical treatment. Without a hearing and despite opposition from the prosecution, respondent judge issued an order on December 26, 2002, denying the motion to lift the hold departure order but granting the accused permission to travel abroad subject to conditions.
Complainants, including a state prosecutor and private counsel, charged respondent with gross ignorance of the law, partiality, and patent injustice. They argued the motion was litigious and required a hearing with notice to the prosecution. They also alleged respondent acted with undue haste, failed to verify the medical claim, and improperly interfered in a case not assigned to her. A supplemental complaint accused her of a pattern of partiality in other related cases, citing delays in resolving motions filed by the complainant’s camp while acting swiftly on motions favorable to the accused.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Marivic Trabajo-Daray is administratively liable for her actions in connection with the criminal case and related proceedings.

RULING

Yes, respondent judge is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law and conduct unbecoming of a judge, demonstrating partiality. The Supreme Court found that the urgent motion was indeed litigious as it sought affirmative relief—permission to travel despite an existing hold departure order—which would affect the rights of the prosecution. Basic procedural rules mandate that such motions must be set for hearing with notice to the adverse party to afford them an opportunity to oppose. By granting the motion ex-parte, respondent violated fundamental due process. When the law or rule is elementary, failure to comply constitutes gross ignorance.
Furthermore, her overall conduct, particularly the contrast between her swift action on the accused’s motion and her delays in acting on the complainant’s motions in related cases, created an appearance of partiality that erodes public confidence in the judiciary. A judge must not only be impartial but must also appear to be impartial. The Court modified the investigating justice’s recommendation and found her guilty of gross ignorance of the law and violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct. She was fined Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) and sternly warned that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.