AM RTJ 99 1444; (August, 2000) (Digest)
A.M. No. RTJ-99-1444; August 3, 2000
State Prosecutor Romulo S. J. Tolentino, Acting Provincial Prosecutor, complainant, vs. Judge Nilo A. Malanyaon, Regional Trial Court, Branch 30, Camarines Sur, respondent.
FACTS
State Prosecutor Romulo Tolentino filed an administrative complaint against Judge Nilo Malanyaon for alleged grave abuse of discretion and violations of judicial canons. The complaint stemmed from the judge’s dismissal of five criminal cases (People vs. Panday and People vs. Florece) for child abuse and corruption of a minor. The judge dismissed the cases after the prosecutor, during preliminary examinations for arrest warrants, refused to present additional affidavits to substantiate probable cause, maintaining such evidence was for trial. The judge ruled no probable cause existed to issue warrants. Complainant also alleged several motions he filed—including for inhibition, consolidation, and reconsideration—remained unresolved for months.
ISSUE
Whether respondent judge is administratively liable for (1) dismissing the criminal cases for lack of probable cause, and (2) failing to resolve pending motions and incidents within a reasonable period.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the charges relating to the dismissal orders but found the judge liable for undue delay in resolving pending motions. On the first issue, the Court emphasized that an administrative complaint is not a substitute for judicial remedies like appeal or certiorari. The determination of probable cause is a judicial function. The Court of Appeals, in a related petition, had already found no grave abuse of discretion in the dismissals, a judgment which became final. Thus, the judge’s actions, even if arguably erroneous, are not proper subjects of administrative sanction absent proof of bad faith, fraud, or corruption.
On the second issue, the Court found the judge remiss in his duty. Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct mandates judges to dispose of court business promptly. The five motions remained unacted upon for three to five months. Even if the motions were without merit, the judge had a duty to resolve them promptly by granting or denying them. His inaction constituted a violation of this rule. Accordingly, the Court REPRIMANDED Judge Malanyaon for failure to resolve pending motions/incidents, with a warning that repetition would be met with a more severe penalty.