G.R. No. RTJ-18-2514. January 30, 2018. OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, vs. JUDGE HECTOR B. SALISE, Respondent.
FACTS:

A judicial audit of RTC Branches 6 and 7 in Agusan del Sur, both under respondent Judge Hector B. Salise, revealed numerous procedural irregularities. In Branch 6, Judge Salise improperly allowed substituted service of summons in annulment cases, which only permits personal service or publication. He granted bail in non-bailable capital offenses without the required evidentiary hearings. He also dismissed criminal cases prematurely, such as before scheduled arraignments or without a motion from the accused, and rendered a decision in a civil case while motions were pending and a hearing was still scheduled.
In Branch 7, Judge Salise consistently violated rules in nullity of marriage cases. He decided cases without mandatory pre-trial, without acquiring jurisdiction over respondents due to unserved summons, and without the required investigation report from the public prosecutor. He also delegated the reception of evidence to a non-lawyer clerk of court and caused extreme delays in issuing warrants of arrest. Judge Salise apologized, attributing the lapses to good faith, inadvertence, and a case-to-case deviation from rules.

ISSUE

Whether Judge Hector B. Salise is administratively liable for the numerous procedural irregularities and violations found by the judicial audit.

RULING

Yes, Judge Salise is guilty of gross ignorance of the law and procedure and serious misconduct. The Court found that his actions were not mere inadvertence but a patent disregard of well-known and elementary rules. Granting bail without a hearing in capital offenses, dismissing cases without legal basis, proceeding without jurisdiction in annulment cases, and improperly delegating the reception of evidence are not discretionary acts but clear violations of specific procedural mandates. His claim of good faith is untenable; a judge is presumed to know the law, and repeated violations demonstrate incompetence. Such conduct erodes public confidence in the judiciary. The magnitude and repetitiveness of the infractions, affecting numerous cases and litigants, constitute serious misconduct prejudicial to the service. Consequently, the Court imposed the penalty of dismissal from service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and with perpetual disqualification from reemployment in any government branch or instrumentality.