Jorda vs Judge Bitas

A.M. RTJ-14-236 and 14-237

March 5, 2014

FACTS:

This administrative case rooted from a criminal case filed against Danilo Miralles for
Qualified Trafficking and a violation of Art. VI, Sec. 10 of R.A. 7610 presided by respondent Judge Bitas. The
Complainant, Prosecutor Jorda, alleges that during the hearing for the Petition for Involuntary Commitment of the
minor victim to the DSWD, respondent judge propounded questions appearing to mitigate Miralles’ role in the
crime charged.

It was also found upon investigation that the family members of respondent judge are close associates of Miralles.
During the hearing, Judge Bitas publicly humiliated complainant and exhibited anger and animosity towards her for
filing a motion for inhibition. Judge Bitas told her that he does not want to see her face and that he does not want
her to participate in the proceedings and refused to allow her to do cross-examination.

It was also made to appear that a hearing was held when in fact there was none as it was merely inserted in the
records of the case. Lastly, respondent judge granted bail to the accused even without a motion to fix bail and no
hearing was conducted thereon. Despite the finding of probable cause, respondent judge did not issue a warrant of
arrest against the accused.

ISSUE: Whether Judge Bitas is guilty of grave abuse of authority and irregularity in the performance of official
duties, bias and partiality in violation of the New Code of Judicial
Conduct?

HELD: YES

As a rule, not every error or mistake of a judge in the performance of his official duties
renders him liable in the absence of fraud, dishonesty or corruption. This does not mean, however, that a judge
need not observe propriety, discreteness and due care in the performance of his official functions.

As to the bail, based on the penalty prescribed by law, the grant of bail in this case is a
matter of discretion and only after evidence is submitted in a hearing which is indispensable before a judge can
properly determine whether the prosecution’s evidence is weak or strong. In this case, the respondent judge
deviated from the requirement of a hearing where there is an application for bail and it was granted without
neither a hearing or motion for application for bail. Respondent’s act of fixing the accused’s bail and reducing the
same motu proprio is not mere deficiency in prudence, discretion and judgement on the part of the judge, but a
patent disregard of well-known rules. When an error is so gross and patent, such error produces an inference of
bad faith, making the judge liable for gross ignorance of the law.

As to the hearing for the petition for commitment to DSWD, the respondent judge’s
actuations in the court constitutes abuse of authority and manifest partiality to the accused. His utterance of such
words was improper and does not speak well of his stature as an officer of the Court. His use of improper words is
clearly insensitive, distasteful, and inexcusable. Complainant cannot likewise be blamed for being suspicious of
respondent’s bias to the accused following his admission that his sister was a classmate of one Nora Miralles.
Judges should be careful to avoid anything that may tend to awaken the suspicion that their person, social or
sundry relations could influence their objectivity. Use of intemperate language is proscribed by Sec. 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”.