G.R. No. A.M. No. RTJ-97-1390 and A.M. No. RTJ-98-1411. August 5, 1998.
CESAR B. MERIS, complainant, vs. JUDGE CARLOS C. OFILADA, respondent.

FRANCISCO R. HERNANDEZ, complainant, vs. JUDGE CARLOS C. OFILADA, respondent.

FACTS

This is a consolidated administrative case against Judge Carlos C. Ofilada of the RTC, Branch 15, Malolos, Bulacan.
In A.M. No. RTJ-97-1390, complainant Cesar B. Meris, EIIB Regional Director, charged respondent Judge with grave abuse of authority. Respondent issued Search Warrant No. 20-M-96 for illegal possession of narra lumber. The warrant was served, and a return was filed. The subject, Thomas Jay, filed a Motion to Quash, setting the hearing for May 31, 1996. However, Jay’s counsel moved to advance the hearing to May 28, 1996, undertaking to notify the parties but failing to notify complainant Meris. A Special Counsel from the DOJ filed an opposition. Despite this opposition and the absence of the government counsel, respondent Judge granted the motion to quash and ordered the lumber’s release on May 28, 1996, three days before the originally scheduled hearing. Complainant’s motion for reconsideration was denied. Respondent also misrepresented in an order that he was on leave from May 29 to July 22, 1996, when his actual leave was only until July 3, 1996.
In A.M. No. RTJ-98-1411, complainant Francisco R. Hernandez charged respondent Judge with gross incompetence and ignorance of the law. In a murder case where all accused were at large, respondent, acting on an ex-parte motion by a private prosecutor, reduced the bail for one accused, Rolando Garcia, from no bail to P200,000.00 without any hearing or notice to the public prosecutor. Garcia posted bail and was released. Respondent later granted Garcia’s motion to dismiss based on the right to a speedy trial, despite a pending petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals challenging the reduction of bail. The Supreme Court subsequently annulled respondent’s orders reducing bail and dismissing the case.
The Court also noted respondent’s previous administrative infractions: a fine for gross ignorance of the law in Adm. Matter No. RTJ-94-1217 (June 16, 1995) and two other pending administrative cases.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Carlos C. Ofilada is administratively liable for his actions in the two complaints, warranting the penalty of dismissal.

RULING

Yes, respondent Judge is administratively liable and is ordered DISMISSED from the service.
In A.M. No. RTJ-97-1390, respondent Judge committed grave abuse of authority and evident partiality. He acted on a Motion to Quash a search warrant without proof of service of notice to the adverse party, in violation of Sections 5 and 6, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court. The motion was a “mere scrap of paper” which should not have been acted upon. By proceeding ex-parte and ordering the release of the seized lumber without affording the prosecution its day in court, especially when a criminal complaint was already filed, respondent violated the fundamental requirements of due process and fair play. His misrepresentation regarding his leave of absence further compounded his culpability.
In A.M. No. RTJ-98-1411, respondent Judge exhibited gross incompetence and ignorance of the law, coupled with evident partiality. He reduced bail from no bail to a fixed amount without a hearing and without notice to the public prosecutor, in blatant disregard of procedural rules and the substantive law governing bail in capital offenses. He then dismissed the case based on the right to a speedy trial while a petition challenging his bail order was pending before the Court of Appeals, an act of arrogance and disrespect toward a superior court.
Considering these acts in light of his previous administrative record, respondent Judge has demonstrated a pattern of conduct diametrically opposed to the standards of competence, integrity, and independence required of a magistrate. His repeated failures to observe basic laws and rules constitute gross misconduct and gross ignorance of the law, which are serious offenses prejudicial to the administration of justice.
ACCORDINGLY, respondent JUDGE CARLOS C. OFILADA is found GUILTY and is ordered DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and leave credits, with prejudice to reemployment in any government office. He is directed to cease and desist from performing his functions immediately.