SECOND DIVISION
[A.M. No. MTJ-21-005. July 14, 2021.][Formerly OCA IPI No. 18-2961-MTJ]
SPOUSES RUBEN AND NENITA TABOY, complainants, v.PRESIDING JUDGE BILL D. BUYUCAN, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, BAGABAG-DIADI, NUEVA VIZCAYA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated14 July 2021which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. MTJ-21-005 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 18-2961-MTJ] (Spouses Ruben and Nenita Taboy v. Presiding Judge Bill D. Buyucan, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Bagabag-Diadi, Nueva Vizcaya). — The Court resolves to RE-DOCKET the instant administrative complaint against now dismissed Presiding Judge Bill D. Buyucan (Judge Buyucan), Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Bagabag-Diadi, Nueva Vizcaya as a regular administrative matter.
The Court adopts the findings and recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator with modification of the penalties.
Judge Buyucan is
While judges should not be disciplined for inefficiency on account merely of occasional mistakes or errors of judgments, it is highly imperative that they should be conversant with fundamental and basic legal principles to merit the confidence of the citizenry. 1 When the law is sufficiently basic, a judge owes it to his office to know and to simply apply it. Anything less would be constitutive of gross ignorance of the law. 2
Here, in both Criminal Case Nos. 6201 and 6236 for malicious mischief, Judge Buyucan blatantly disregarded the mandatory provisions of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. Sections 1 and 2 thereof read:
SECTION 1. Scope. — This rule shall govern the summary procedure in the Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, the Municipal Trial Courts, and the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in the following cases falling within their jurisdiction:
xxx xxx xxx
B. Criminal Cases:
(1) Violations of traffic laws, rules and regulations;
(2) Violations of the rental law;
(3) Violations of municipal or city ordinances;
(4) All other criminal cases where the penalty prescribed by law for the offense charged is imprisonment not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding (P1,000.00), or both, irrespective of other imposable penalties, accessory or otherwise, or of the civil liability arising therefrom: Provided, however, that in offenses involving damage to property through criminal negligence, this Rule shall govern where the imposable fine does not exceed ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00). (Emphasis supplied)
xxx xxx xxx
SECTION 2. Determination of applicability. — Upon the filing of a civil or criminal action, the court shall issue an order declaring whether or not the case shall be governed by this Rule. A patently erroneous determination to avoid the application of the Rule on Summary Procedure is a ground for disciplinary action. CAIHTE
As correctly found by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), applying Article 329 of the Revised Penal Code, the imposable penalty for the crime of malicious mischief filed against complainants, ranged only from arresto menor (one to thirty days) to arresto mayor (one month and one day to six months). Thus, the criminal cases should have been governed by the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure which covers cases where the prescribed penalty is imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months. Section 12 of the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure states:
SECTION 12. Duty of Court. —
xxx xxx xxx
(b) If commenced by information. — When the case is commenced by information, or is not dismissed pursuant to the next preceding paragraph, the court shall issue an order which, together with copies of the affidavits and other evidence submitted by the prosecution, shall require the accused to submit his counter-affidavit and the affidavits of his witnesses as well as any evidence in his behalf, serving copies thereof on the complainant or prosecutor not later than ten (10) days from receipt of said order. The prosecution may file reply affidavits within ten (10) days after receipt of the counter-affidavits of the defense. (Emphasis supplied)
xxx xxx xxx
SECTION 16. Arrest of Accused. — The court shall not order the arrest of the accused except for failure to appear whenever required. Release of the person arrested shall either be on bail or on recognizance by a responsible citizen acceptable to the court. (Emphasis supplied)
xxx xxx xxx
Here, the accused (herein complainants) were never required to appear before Judge Buyucan so there was no occasion for them either "to have appeared," much less, "to have failed to appear" as to justify the order for their arrest under Section 16. Too, there was even no directive from Judge Buyucan for the accused to submit counter-affidavits and affidavits of their witnesses as ordained by Section 12 (b).
Notably, Judge Buyucan did not offer any excuse for his assailed actions. He merely made a general denial and dismissed the charges as complainants' way of harassing him since they failed to obtain a favorable ruling from him.
Denial is inherently a weak defense. To be believed, it must be buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability; otherwise, such denial is purely self-serving and is without evidentiary value. 3
As for the charges against him being allegedly meant only to harass him, suffice it to state that his gross ignorance of the law is a matter of record. There is no escaping it.
No less than the Constitution states that a member of the judiciary "must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity and independence." 4 When a judge displays an utter lack of familiarity with the rules, he erodes the public's confidence in the competence of our courts. 5 The rules on summary procedure are elementary to the extent that non-observance and lack of knowledge on them constitute gross ignorance of the law, especially for judges who are supposed to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with the procedural rules. 6 Judge Buyucan has failed to live up to the exacting standards of his office. Thus, the Court finds him guilty of two (2) counts of Gross Ignorance of the Law.
The charges of
The Court adopts the recommendation of the OCA to dismiss the other charges of delay in resolving the motion to inhibit in Civil Case No. 1210, premature resolution of the case — albeit there were still pending incidents, and the alleged personal interest of Judge Buyucan in the property subject of the case, for lack of merit.
As correctly noted by the OCA, the motion to inhibit was resolved under Order dated November 3, 2017, or less than a month after it got submitted for resolution; the supposed premature resolution of the civil case on the merits is of judicial nature which may be pursued through a motion for reconsideration, appeal or certiorari, among others; and the claim that Judge Buyucan has an interest in the property subject of the civil case is devoid of factual basis. DETACa
Penalties
Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 18-01-05-SC 7 governs the procedure in administrative actions against judges of regular courts.
Section 22 classifies administrative gross ignorance of the law as a serious offense. 8 On the other hand, Section 25 provides the sanctions for serious offenses, viz.:
SECTION 25. Sanctions. —
A. Of the respondent is guilty of a serious charge, any of the following sanctions may be imposed:
1. Dismissal from service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court may determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or controlled corporations. Provided, however, that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave credits;
2. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than three (3) but not exceeding six (6) months; or
3. A fine of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00.
xxx xxx xxx
Since Judge Buyucan had already been previously dismissed from the service, a fine of Twenty-One Thousand Pesos (P21,000.00), as recommended by the OCA is imposed on Judge Buyucan for each count of gross ignorance of the law he was found liable for or a total of Forty-Two Thousand Pesos (P42,000.00).
ACCORDINGLY, the Court finds respondent Hon. Bill D. Buyucan, Presiding Judge, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Bagabag-Diadi, Nueva Vizcaya, GUILTY of two (2) counts of Gross Ignorance of the Law. He is FINED in the amount of TWENTY-ONE THOUSAND PESOS (P21,000.00) for each count, or a total of FORTY-TWO THOUSAND PESOS (P42,000.00). He is ORDERED to pay the same within thirty (30) days from finality of this RESOLUTION. Should there be delay in the payment of the fine, a six percent (6%) interest per annum shall also be paid.
SO ORDERED." (J. Lopez, J., designated additional member per Special Order No. 2822 dated April 7, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Sps. Monterola v. Judge Caoibes, Jr., 429 Phil. 59, 67 (2002).
2.Atty. Cabiti v. Judge Balindong, 672 Phil. 398, 412 (2011).
3. See Cruz v. Fernando, 594 Phil. 1, 7 (2008).
4. Article VIII, Section 7 (3) of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
5.Bago v. Judge Pagayatan, 602 Phil. 459, 473 (2009).
6.Sps. Crisologo v. Judge Omelio, 696 Phil. 30, 57 (2012).
7. Entitled: Establishment of the Judicial Integrity Board and the Corruption Prevention and Investigation Office dated October 2, 2018.
8.Id., Sec. 22.