Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION

A.M. No. RTJ-94-1167 December 4, 1995 HEIRS OF THE LATE NASSER D. YASIN, represented by ATTY. NASIB D. YASIN, complainants, vs. JUDGE AUGUSTO N. FELIX, respondent.

On February 2, 1994 accused Sonny Sapad was arrested without a warrant and a criminal complaint for the murder of Nasser Yasin was filed against him on February 8, 1994. On that same day, respondent judge issued an order of arrest for the accused. Sonny Sapad, through counsel, filed a petition for habeas corpus alleging that he was arrested without a warrant; that his arrest was illegal. Respondent judge issued an order directing the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. 9Pursuant thereto, a writ of habeas corpus was issued, addressed to the provincial warden ordering him to produce the body of Sonny Sapad before the court and to show cause for his detention. The provincial prosecutor filed a motion to set aside the above-quoted order on the ground that the accused was arrested pursuant to the warrant of arrest issued by the respondent judge himself. Said motion was denied likewise with the motion for reconsideration. Hence the instant administrative complaint against respondent judge was filed. Complainants contend that respondent judge's order granting the petition for habeas corpus is a flagrant violation of Section 4, Rule 102 of the Revised Rules of Court. 16 Thus, it is alleged that the respondent judge is grossly ignorant of the law and/or has knowingly rendered an unjust judgment. Respondent judge is likewise accused of being negligent in failing to notify the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of the hearing on the petition for habeas corpus. W/N: respondent judge is guilty as charged.

The court held that the charge of gross ignorance of the law and/or knowingly rendering an unjust judgment has no factual basis. The court held that a judge may not be administratively charged for mere errors of judgment in the absence of a showing of any bad faith, malice or corrupt purpose on his part. In the instant case, complainants failed to prove that respondent judge was grossly ignorant of the law and that he knowingly rendered an unjust judgment. However, respondent judge deserves to be appropriately penalized for his negligence in the management of his office. The Provincial Prosecutor was not properly notified of the hearing on the petition for habeas corpus filed by Sonny Sapad. The testimony of the Clerk of Court that the giving of verbal notice is a usual practice in their office does not only undermine established procedures of law but a slap on the respondent judge's ability and competence to manage his office. The court found respondent Judge guilty of negligence in the management of his office.