G.R. No. MTJ-04-1543. May 31, 2004. ATTY. AUDIE C. ARNADO, complainant, vs. JUDGE MARINO S. BUBAN, MTCC, Branch 1, Tacloban City, respondent.
FACTS

Two informations for estafa involving amounts of P59,968.00 and P818,510.20 were filed against complainant Atty. Audie Arnado before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) presided by respondent Judge Marino S. Buban. Complainant initially filed a motion to suspend proceedings based on a prejudicial question, which was denied. Later, through new counsel, he filed a motion to quash the informations and recall the warrant of arrest on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. He argued that the imposable penalties for the amounts involved exceeded six years, placing jurisdiction with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), not the MTC. Respondent judge denied the motion, reasoning that the complainant had “lost standing” for allegedly jumping bail, and maintained jurisdiction over the cases.

ISSUE

Whether respondent judge is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law for erroneously assuming jurisdiction over the criminal cases and issuing a warrant of arrest.

RULING

Yes, respondent judge is liable for gross ignorance of the law. The Court emphasized the fundamental distinction between jurisdiction over the subject matter and jurisdiction over the person. Jurisdiction over the subject matter, conferred solely by law, is determined by the allegations in the information. Under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, the amounts alleged (P59,968.00 and P818,510.20) clearly warrant penalties exceeding six years of imprisonment. Since Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691 , confines MTC jurisdiction to offenses punishable by imprisonment not exceeding six years, jurisdiction properly pertained to the RTC. Respondent judge’s assumption of jurisdiction was therefore a grave error rendering all subsequent proceedings void.
The Court rejected respondent’s defenses. His claim that the accused waived the jurisdictional issue by posting bail confused jurisdiction over the person (which is waivable) with jurisdiction over the subject matter (which is not). His assertion that the accused lost standing in court was baseless, as the proper sanction for non-appearance in a criminal case is an order for arrest, not treating the accused as a legal non-entity. While charges of partiality were unsubstantiated, the foundational error of jurisdiction sufficed for liability. For gross ignorance of basic jurisdictional principles—a mandatory knowledge for judges—respondent was fined P10,000.00 with a stern warning.