AM RTJ 92 897; (November, 1998) (Digest)
A.M. No. RTJ-92-897. November 24, 1998
QUITERIO HERMO, petitioner, vs. HON. ROSALIO G. DELA ROSA, Judge, RTC-Branch 28, Manila, respondent.
FACTS
This administrative case arose from the naturalization petition of Juan G. Frivaldo, heard before respondent Judge Rosalio G. dela Rosa. The judge initially set the hearing for March 16, 1992, with orders for publication and posting as required by law. Frivaldo later moved to advance the hearing due to his political plans, which the judge granted, resetting it to February 21, 1992. The order granting this motion was not published or posted. The judge rendered a decision granting the petition on February 27, 1992, and allowed Frivaldo to take his oath of allegiance on the same day.
Quiterio Hermo filed a complaint, charging the judge with gross ignorance of the law and malfeasance. He alleged multiple irregularities, including the non-publication of the order advancing the hearing, conducting the hearing within six months from the last publication, allowing the oath-taking before the decision’s finality and the two-year statutory waiting period, and an apparent attempt to conceal the proceedings. The Supreme Court had previously, in Republic v. De la Rosa, declared the naturalization proceedings null and void for jurisdictional defects.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge Rosalio G. dela Rosa is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law or serious procedural lapses in handling the naturalization petition of Juan G. Frivaldo.
RULING
Yes, the respondent judge is administratively liable for serious procedural lapses. The Court, citing its prior decision in Republic v. De la Rosa, found the naturalization proceedings “full of procedural flaws” and “an anomaly.” The legal logic is clear: compliance with the publication and posting requirements under the Revised Naturalization Law ( C.A. No. 473 ) is jurisdictional. The court cannot acquire authority to hear a petition absent such compliance. The judge’s actions—advancing the hearing without the required publication, conducting it within the prohibited six-month period, and permitting immediate oath-taking in violation of the rule on finality and the two-year waiting period under R.A. No. 530 —constituted patent disregard of mandatory statutory procedures. These were not mere inadvertent mistakes but clear violations of laws he was bound to know and apply. Consequently, the Court found him liable and imposed a fine of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00).