376 Phil. 341; 97 OG No. 19, 2726 (May 7, 2001)
DAVIDE, JR., C.J.:
ORIGIN and FIRST ROUTE:In the meantime, the Court referred the complaint to then Associate Justice Arturo B. Buena of the Court of Appeals for investigation. The hearings set on 9, 10, and 11 August 1995 were cancelled on motion of the complainant. Thereafter, complainant requested a change of venue on the ground that he was financially hard-up. This Court denied the request for change of venue; nevertheless, it resolved to delegate the reception of evidence to Executive Judge Eleuterio E. Chiu of the RTC of Dumaguete City, Branch 32. The records of the case were thereafter transmitted to Judge Chiu.
This criminal case aforestated was filed before the Office of the clerk of court of all Regional Trial Courts of this province, on March 14, 1994. As usual, in line with Administrative Circular No. 7 of the Supreme Court dated September 23, 1974, "in order to provide a uniform method of assignment of cases to different branches..." of the Courts and manner by which such distribution is to be effected..." this case together with the other cases was raffled. The raffle, as we always conduct the same every Wednesday, was conducted on March 16, 1994, and after the raffle it occurred that this case was assigned to RTC Branch 43, the Judge here is Judge Winston M. Villegas. (Attached herein are the xerox copies of the minutes, attendance and distribution of the cases assigned to different courts marked as Annex[es] "A" and "B" correspondingly.
SECOND ROUTE OF CRIMINAL CASE 11427:
That in the interim, as this case was pending before RTC Branch 43, there was another criminal case likewise pending before said Court, entitled People of the Philippines, plaintiff, versus Enecrito Saguban y Ybasan, accused, for ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS who also had another criminal case for RAPE before RTC Branch 34. The offended party in the latter cases through the Fourth Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Joseph A. Elmaco, filed a motion for consolidation before RTC Branch 34, of the RAPE case with the ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS pending with RTC Branch 43, which motion was granted by RTC Branch 34 Judge Rosendo B. Bandal, Jr., (xerox copy of the motion herein attached and marked as Annex "C" and the ORDER of the Judge, herein marked as Annex "D"); with this ORDER, therefore, the records of the RAPE case was transferred to RTC Branch 43, the latter being a Criminal Case of lower number. And because this RAPE case was transferred to RTC Branch 43, it has to [be] exchanged or replaced with another criminal case by RTC Branch 43, and by reason of perhaps no other case of the same kind and status [sic], what was transferred by RTC Branch 43 to RTC Branch 34 was this case of People of the Philippines, plaintiff, versus Evaristo Manahon, Crim. Case No. 11427; that there was no raffle in this exchange finds its reason on the rule on CONSOLIDATION which provides:. . .
THIRD ROUTE OF CRIMINAL CASE 11427:
As this criminal case was made pending before this RTC Branch 34, another incident occurred at RTC Branch 44, presided over by Judge Alvin L. Tan. Provincial Prosecutor II, Diosdado D. Hermosa, of the Province of Negros Oriental, filed a motion dated May 18, 1994, for the transfer of one criminal case entitled People of the Philippines, plaintiff, versus Antioco Ponce, et al., designated as Criminal Case No. 10577, for violation of forest laws, to RTC Branch 34, since said RTC Branch, pursuant to Supreme Court's Administrative Order No. 150-93 dated August 19, 1993, was created as a Special Court assigned to handle forestry law violations. (Herein is the xerox copy of the motion of the Assistant Provincial prosecutor marked as Annex "E") and because of this motion Judge Alvin L. Tan of RTC Branch 44 granted the same and issued an ORDER dated May 20, 1994, directing the Clerk of Court to forward the records of Criminal Case No. 10577, (Pp. vs. Antioco Ponce, et al.) to RTC Branch 34, subject to exchange of another case of the same nature. And so, in exchange of criminal case No. 10577, Pp. vs. Antioco Ponce, et al., RTC Branch 34, indorsed this criminal case of People of the Philippines versus Evaristo Manahon for Qualified Theft, Crim. Case No. 11427, through its Clerk of Court, Raymundo Jorge A. Mercado, on June 27, 1994 (Please see p. 27 of the Records of the case, or simply herein attached xerox copy of the indorsement, Annex "F") to RTC Branch 44, presided by Judge Tan.
Reason for the exchange of this criminal case is that there is only one court created by the Supreme Court as a Special Court to handle forestry law violations.
FOURTH ROUTE OF CRIMINAL CASE NO. 11427:
As this case reached RTC Branch 44, something developed. The accused filed a criminal case before the Ombudsman, an Administrative Case before the Supreme Court, on grounds Evaristo Manahon thought of. Not only this, he also filed a motion in court, on August 5, 1994 for Judge Alvin L. Tan to inhibit in trying his criminal case on the merits, which motion Judge Tan granted and per ORDER issued by him dated August 17, 1994, he forwarded the records of this criminal case to the Office of the Executive Judge for a re-raffle, subject to an exchange with another case of the same nature and status, on August 18, 1994. And on August 24, 1994 there was a re-raffle of this case together with the other criminal and civil cases in its regular raffle and was re-assigned to RTC Branch 31, presided by then retired Judge Jesus C. Magno.
Thereafter, complainant filed a written motion to withdraw the complaint. He likewise executed an Affidavit of Desistance seeking the dismissal of his administrative complaint against respondent Judge, since he could not prove his case against the latter.
COURT: So do I get it right from you that as a lawyer of Evaristo Manahon, in your assessment of the case, you find no evidence against the respondent? ATTY. UNTO: Yes, your Honor, that there is really no sufficient evidence to warrant the answer or responsibility of Judge Tan in this case, that is my personal opinion. COURT: So may I just ask one or two questions from the complainant regarding your manifestation. ATTY. UNTO: Yes. COURT: (To Mr. Evaristo Manahon) So Mr. Manahon, in your complaint you said you are filing a formal complaint for illegal arrest and detention, grave abuse of discretion, abuse of authority, against Judge Alvin Tan. So do I get it right from you also that you realize that there is really no evidence against Judge Tan on these grounds of your administrative complaint. MR. MANAHON: Yes. COURT: And so you also confirm the manifestation of your lawyer Atty. Elpidio Unto, that you desire to withdraw the complaint for the reason that you have no evidence against Judge Tan? MR. MANAHON: Yes. (TSN, Rollo, 158-159).
While litigants should not be discouraged to ventilate their grievances against judges, the charge should not be utterly false and frivolous especially when based on a mere suspicion. An unfounded charge is a classic case of a suit to harass members of the bench. A judge regard[s] [as] sacred his integrity and reputation and could only hope to be the only legacy he could proffer to his children. It is here significant to note, deeply regrettable that respondent judge failed to receive his fringe benefits, presumably since 1995. We need not emphasize that the damage done to him, to the members of his family even more, is now beyond repair. In fact, the status of respondent's case in the Ombudsman is not yet known.Justice Umali then recommended the DISMISSAL of the charges against respondent Judge Tan.