331 Phil. 47
TORRES, JR., J.:
Complainant further alleged that because said Order made him appear as remiss and negligent in the performance of his duties as a government prosecutor, he examined the folder of said case and found out that:"O R D E R
"In view of the absence of special prosecutor, Atty. Leo Tabao without any justifiable reason, let the arraignment and pre-trial of the above-entitled case be rescheduled to January 17, 1995 at 8:30 in the morning with notice to counsel and parties.
"SO ORDERED.
"Open Court, Bulwagan Ng Katarungan, Tacloban City, January 3, 1995."
"(a) (I)n November 1994, Judge Butalid, thru his Branch Clerk of Court Atty. Jose B. Lagado issued a subpoena for arraignment and pre-trial of said case for 03 January 199(5) (Annex "B", certified machine copy);Complainant opined that respondent judge, in issuing the order abused his authority as a judicial officer by putting into the records of the criminal case an act of non-feasance of complainant Prosecutor Tabao when all the while respondent judge was aware that he never notified complainant about the scheduled hearing for 03 January 1995; that stating in the Order that there was "no justifiable reason" for the absence is an act of gross dishonesty by the respondent judge; and that it is possible that respondent judge is trying to hit back at the complainant probably because of a previous report which complainant made to this Court regarding an illegal logging case.
"(b) Said subpoena was addressed only to all the accused and government witnesses from the DENR, PNP, and EIIB without any notice to the undersigned or the City Prosecution Office of Tacloban City;
(c) Judge Butalid and his clerk of court were aware that there was no notice or subpoena prepared and served upon the undersigned when the open court order of 03 January 1995 was made.
In his comment, respondent judge stated:Complainant filed his reply citing respondent's admission of error. He contends that it should not be explained away as a "harmless statement" or by the fact that he was not hurt or offended in any manner; the charge is allegedly basically for dishonesty and as the circumstances show, it is well-founded; the defense of honest mistake and good faith is irreconcilable with the subpoena issued to all others but him, the subsequent citation of complainant for neglect in the performance of official function and the attempt to mislead the Court that all was an honest mistake; and that efforts could have been exerted to have the prosecution represented if he was really in good faith, instead of summarily blaming the prosecution.
"1. That the order adverted to did not require said Prosecutor to do anything under the circumstances nor punish him for contempt of Court for his failure to appear in said arraignment and pre-trial or call the attention of the prosecution for the absence of said Prosecutor. The above-quoted order is a harmless statement of the proceedings had on January 3, 1995.
"2. That the phrase 'without any justifiable reason' was included in the order under the mistaken notion that said Prosecutor was duly notified of said arraignment and pre-trial.
"3. That such error or misapprehension of facts will not however constitute Grave Abuse of Authority or Dishonesty in the Performance of Official Duties as said error was not intentionally done as to call for the sanction imposed by law for said offense, but based upon the honest belief of the undersigned that said Prosecutor was duly notified.
xxx