THE Supreme Court has dismissed from the
service Judge Cesar Dumlao of the metropolitan trial court of
San Mateo, Isabela for violating the Rules of Court in granting
bail to an accused who was facing a criminal complaint in
another court.
The accused, Hernan Medina, was a respondent
in an estafa case filed by an Ester Barbero before the sala of
Judge Anastacio Anghad of Branch 36 of the Santiago City
regional trial court. Anghad had ordered Medina arrested but
when the latter filed a petition for bail before Dumlao's court,
Dumlao approved it despite lacking jurisdiction over the case.
Dumlao ordered the Bureau of Jail Management
and Penology and the Philippine National Police to release
Medina on May 9, 2003.
An aggrieved Barbero filed a complaint
against Dumlao for gross ignorance of the law with the Office of
the Court Administrator (OCA) on July 15, 2003. The OCA
recommended dismissal for Dumlao and the high court approved the
recommendation.
Section 3, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court
states that "no person under detention by legal process shall be
released except when he is admitted to bail, while Section 19
provides that the accused must be discharged upon approval of
the bail by the judge with whom it was filed in accordance with
Section 17."
Section 17 provides that bail may be filed
with the court where the case is pending unless the judge is
absent or unavailable, or if the accused is arrested in a city,
town or province other than where the case is pending.
The high court said that since the criminal
case was pending before the RTC of Santiago City and the judge
there was neither absent nor unavailable, Dumlao clearly lacked
the authority to approve and release Medina on bail.
The SC noted that this was the second time
that Dumlao committed culpable error and disrespect to the court
by repeatedly refusing to comment on the affidavit-complaint and
resolution issued by the court.
In another case, Pasay RTC Judge Jesus Mupas
was fined P10,000 by the SC after finding him administratively
liable for delaying for more than seven months the resolution of
a case.
The SC Third Division said Mupas was guilty
of incurring delay in resolving motions and incidents pending
before him, and also failed to transmit in a timely manner the
order resolving said motions to the parties, a violation under
Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which requires judges
to dispose of court business promptly. The high court said the
inability of a judge to decide a case within the required period
is inexcusable, constitutes gross inefficiency and warrants the
imposition of administrative sanctions.
Aside from the fine, Mupas was warned that a
repetition of the same act would be dealt with more severely.
"The fact that respondent had additional
assignments will not exonerate him from liability, because he
was not precluded from asking for extension of time to resolve a
pending matter," the high court said.
The disciplinary action against Mupas stemmed
from the complaint filed by Nilo Jay Mina who accused Mupas of
dereliction of duties, grave misconduct, manifest partiality,
violation of the Constitution and the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act.
Mina had been the complainant for damages
against Pasay City Judge Bibiano Colasito, Assistant Prosecutor
Eva Portugal Atienza and Ferdinand Cruz before Mupas' sala. He
said Mupas failed to resolve within the reglementary period his
motion to declare all defendants in default.
Mupas in his defense said he had already
resolved the motion, as well as two motions to dismiss filed by
the two defendants in December 2006. But he also admitted that
copies of the said order were inadvertently not served on
complainant and Cruz.
He said Mina should have filed a motion to resolve before his
court. He also pointed out that he is concurrently handling both
Branch 112 and Branch 117, each receiving the same number of
cases. - Evangeline C. de Vera
