AM RTJ 04 1834; (March, 2004) (Digest)
A.M. No. RTJ-04-1834; March 31, 2004
Chi Chan Lieu @ “Chan Que,” and Hui Lao Chung @ “Leofe Senglao,” complainants, vs. Hon. Inocencio M. Jaurigue in his capacity as Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 44, Mamburao, Occidental Mindoro, respondent.
FACTS
Complainants, accused in a drug case, filed an administrative complaint against Judge Inocencio M. Jaurigue for ignorance of the law, gross negligence, inefficiency, abuse of authority, bias, and prejudgment. They alleged the judge erroneously denied their motion to take the deposition of a barangay captain, incorrectly stated the rules on inhibition, and issued an order compelling a doctor’s testimony based on a factual error—mistaking telegrams sent by a former mayor as being from the intended witness. They further charged gross inefficiency for his failure to resolve their omnibus motion and motion for deposition within the reglementary period, noting the written orders were mailed months after their filing and were postdated.
In his defense, Judge Jaurigue denied the charges, claiming the actions were taken in good faith to ascertain the witness’s infirmity and that the motions had been resolved orally in open court. He admitted the mistake regarding the telegrams was unintentional and conceded the written orders were mailed late.
ISSUE
Whether Judge Inocencio M. Jaurigue is administratively liable for the acts complained of.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court found Judge Jaurigue administratively liable. The Court rejected his explanation as contrived, particularly noting he could not have resolved a motion in December 2000 that was filed in January 2001. This constituted dishonesty, a serious offense under the Rules of Court and a violation of Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct requiring judges to perform duties honestly. The ante-dating of the orders to conceal the violation of the 90-day period for resolving motions demonstrated gross incompetence and inefficiency. His failure to verify the source of the telegrams, a central basis for a denial order, was a serious negligent lapse. While the Court found no evidence of malice, fraud, or corruption in his other adjudicative actions, the established procedural violations warranted sanction. Accordingly, Judge Jaurigue was severely reprimanded for gross incompetence, inefficiency, and negligence and fined for dishonesty, with a warning against future irregularities.