AIYU MALLARI

LEGAL ETHICS

Topic: Competence and Intelligence; Canons 6; Errors of Judgment TITLE: DEL ROSARIO vs CEDILLO; A.M. No. MTJ-04-1557. October 21, 2004 FACTS: 1. Martin del Rosario filed an administrative complaint against MTC judge of Meycauayan, Bulacan, Eranio Cedillo, for dismissing the cases of violation of Batas Pambansa 22 (BB 22) that he filed against Filipina Estrella. 2. The facts of the cases filed by del Rosario: Del Rosario allegedly extended 12 million pesos to Estrella and was secured by the latter with 3 postdated checks and 2 real estate mortgages. All such securities were, however, questioned. The issue on the falsification of the real estate mortgages is still pending in Malolos, Bulacan while the cases on the allegedly violation for BP 22 was raffled to judge Cedillo. The notice of dishonor of the above-mentioned checks were allegedly receive and signed by A. Estrella In the BP 22 cases, after the prosecution rested its case, Estrella filed for Demurrer to Evidence. Estrella claimed that the prosecution did not prove the 3rd element of BP 22, notice of dishonor. Judge Cedillo granted such Demurrer to Evidence. Cedillo dismissed not only the criminal cases but also the civil cases for violation of BP 22. 3. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) held judge Cedillo guilty of gross ignorance of law in dismissing both the criminal and civil aspects of the BP 22 cases. OCA recommends suspension of 4 months from service without pay and benefits. 4. The SC did not agree with the OCA, the Court dismissed the complaint against Cedillo. ISSUE: Whether of not judge Cedillo committed gross ignorance of law and conduct prejudicial to public service when he dismissed all the criminal and civil cases for violation of BP 22. HELD: The Court cannot rule on the administrative liability of Cedillo because the instant disciplinary action is premature. The administrative complaint against respondent Judge Cedillo for gross ignorance of the law and conduct prejudicial to public service is DISMISSED. RATIO: On the issue of BP 22: The person alleging must prove the fact of service. The prosecution did not present proof that the demand letter was sent through registered mail NOR presented testimony, or at least affidavit, of the person mailing that, indeed, the demand letter was sent. NOTE: For until complainants appeal is resolved and the case finally is terminated, the Court will have no basis to conclude whether or not respondent judge is indeed guilty of the charges of gross ignorance of the law and knowingly rendering an unjust judgment. It is only after the available judicial remedies have been exhausted and the appellate tribunals have spoken with finality, that the door to an inquiry into his criminal, civil or administrative liability may be said to have opened, or closed. Pendency of complainants appeal PRECLUDES the Court from looking into the errors committed by judge Cedillo in rendering the questioned Decision and whether those errors would make him administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law or knowingly rendering an unjust judgment.

Related jurisprudence: Ting v. Court of Appeals, Frani v. Judge Pagayatan, Flores v. Abesamis