G.R. No. RTJ-89-425 April 17, 1990
Oscar Palma Pagasian, complainant, vs. Judge Cesar P. Azura, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Oscar Palma Pagasian, a barangay captain and prosecution witness in a criminal case for theft of large cattle, filed an administrative complaint against Judge Cesar P. Azura. The judge, in his decision acquitting the accused for lack of evidence, made a startling pronouncement. Although Pagasian was not an accused in the case, the judge declared him guilty of “clear violations of the provisions of the fundamental law of the land and against human rights” for his actions in the investigation. Specifically, the judge cited Pagasian’s warrantless seizure of a cart from an accused’s premises. The dispositive portion of the judgment imposed a fine of P200.00 upon Pagasian, with a subsidiary imprisonment in case of non-payment.
In his comment, Judge Azura conceded that Pagasian was not a party-accused. However, he defended his action by asserting a duty to protect the Constitution, arguing that the warrantless seizure violated constitutional rights. He claimed he could not be held administratively liable for an erroneous decision rendered in good faith, invoking judicial immunity.

ISSUE

Whether Judge Cesar P. Azura is administratively liable for rendering a judgment that imposed a penalty upon a person who was not a party to the case and was denied due process.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found Judge Azura guilty of gross ignorance of the law. The Court emphasized the fundamental constitutional guarantee that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Pagasian was denied this basic right. He was never informed that he was on trial, had no opportunity to defend himself, and was convicted and sentenced for acts not defined as a crime by any statute prescribing a penalty. This violated the principle of nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege (no crime, no penalty without law).
The judge’s reasoning was specious and sophistical. His duty to protect constitutional rights does not grant him license to try and punish a non-party without any procedural safeguards. Judicial immunity from liability for erroneous decisions applies only to judgments rendered within the bounds of jurisdiction and with due process. By imposing a penalty on a non-party witness without any legal basis and without a hearing, Judge Azura demonstrated a gross lack of familiarity with these elementary legal principles. The Court imposed a fine of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) and ordered a copy of the decision entered into his record.