Jorda vs.

Judge Bitas
A.M. No. RTJ-14-2376, March 5, 2014
Peralta, J.

FACTS:
Judge Bitas is the presiding judge in a criminal action for qualified trafficking
and violation of RA 7610 against Danilo Miralles. On the other hand, Jorda and Tabao
are the prosecutors of the said action. They filed a complaint for Grave Abuse of
Authority, Irregularity in the Performance of Official Duties, Bias and Partiality. For
the administrative complaint filed by Tabao, he claims that Judge Bitas disregarded
his duties and violated the mandatory provisions of the Rules of Court when he did
not issue a warrant of arrest against the accused Miralles even when he was already
charged with 2 non-bailable offenses. Furthermore, the Judge also summarily
granted Miralles a reduced bail even in the absence of a motion to fix bail and the
prosecution was not given the opportunity to interpose its objections. He claims that
such acts of the Judge were evident of his bias towards accused Miralles.
For the complaint filed by Jorda, she avers that Judge is bias towards the
accused because during the hearing for the Petition for Involuntary Commitment of
the minor victim to the DSWD, the Judges line of questioning went beyond judicial
authority and discretion. Also, she claims that upon investigation, the family
members of Judge are close associates of Miralles. Moreover, after she filed a
Motion for Inhibition against the Judge, the latter publicly humiliated her and
exhibited his anger and animosity towards her for filing such motion..
For his part, respondent Judge denied all allegations filed against him. He
claims that complainants were only piqued when he blamed her for making
baseless assumptions. He claimed that complainants were incompetent as shown
by the lack of evidence against Miralles. He argued that he allowed Miralles to post
bail because the evidence of guilt against him was not strong. Lastly, he claims that
it was only her sister, who is in the US, who is close to one Nora Miralles and he is
unaware of any personal relation between Nora and such accused.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Judge violated the Code of Judicial Conduct

HELD:
Yes. In granting the bail summarily, Judge committed gross violation of the
law when he did not conduct a hearing nor a motion for application for bail. The
hearing for bail is different from the determination of the existence of a probable
cause. The latter takes place prior to all proceedings. The act of Judge of fixing the
bail and reducing the same motu proprio is not mere deficiency in prudence,
discretion and judgment on the part of respondent but a patent disregard of well-
known rules.
Also the respondents actuation towards Tabao constitutes abuse of authority
and manifest partiality. In pending or prospective litigations before them, judges
should be scrupulously careful to avoid anything that may tend to awaken the
suspicion that their personal, social or sundry relations could influence their
objectivity. Not only must judges possess proficiency in law, they must also act and
behave in such manner that would assure litigants and their counsel of the judges
competence, integrity and independence. Even on the face of boorish behavior from
those he deals with, he ought to conduct himself in a manner befitting a gentleman
and a high officer of the court. The use of intemperate language is included in the
proscription provided by Section 1, Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct,
thus: "Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all the
activities of a judge." It bears stressing that as a dispenser of justice, respondent
should exercise judicial temperament at all times, avoiding vulgar and insulting
language. He must maintain composure and
equanimity.