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 Criminal Case No. 13280 for estafa through falsification. Complainants charged respondent Judge Marivic Trabajo-Daray with patent injustice, partiality, and gross ignorance of the law. The core allegation involved an Order dated December 26, 2002, issued by respondent judge in her capacity as Pairing Judge. The order denied a motion to lift a hold departure order against accused Richard Friend but granted his alternative prayer for permission to travel to the United States for his son’s urgent medical treatment. Complainants argued this was a litigious motion granted without a hearing, proper notice to the prosecution, or verification of the medical claim, thereby practically lifting the hold departure order without due process.
In a Supplemental Complaint, Atty. Ganal further alleged manifest partiality, citing respondent judge’s handling of three related cases involving his client, Yamaoka. He claimed the judge exhibited bias by acting with dispatch on motions favorable to the adverse party while delaying resolutions on Yamaoka’s motions, creating an appearance of impropriety.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Marivic Trabajo-Daray is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law and manifest partiality.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent judge guilty of gross ignorance of the law and manifest partiality. The legal logic is clear. First, on gross ignorance: The motion to travel was litigious as it sought a substantial modification of a prior hold departure order, directly affecting the accused’s liberty and the court’s control over his person. Granting such an ex parte motion without a hearing and without affording the prosecution an opportunity to be heard violated fundamental due process. The rules mandate that litigious motions must be heard to avoid capriciousness and ensure impartiality. A judge’s failure to be aware of this basic constitutional and procedural requirement constitutes gross ignorance.
Second, on manifest partiality: The judge’s pattern of conduct, particularly her uncharacteristic haste in granting relief to the accused contrasted with delays in resolving motions filed by the complainant, inevitably invited doubts about her fairness and integrity. The Code of Judicial Conduct requires judges not only to be impartial but to appear impartial to promote public confidence. Her actions displayed a propensity that failed to meet this standard. Consequently, the Court modified the investigating justice’s finding and imposed a fine of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) with a stern warning.