In Prosecutor Ivy A. Tejano v. Presiding Judge Antonio D. Marigomen, the Supreme Court addressed the critical issue of judicial authority in granting bail. The Court affirmed that a judge overstepped his bounds by issuing a release order without a valid warrant of arrest and without jurisdiction over the case. This ruling underscores the importance of adhering to procedural rules and respecting jurisdictional limits within the judicial system, ultimately safeguarding the integrity of legal processes and ensuring fairness in the administration of justice.

Bail Bonds and Boundaries: When Does a Judge Overstep?

The case revolves around a complaint filed by Prosecutor Ivy A. Tejano against Judge Antonio D. Marigomen and Utility Worker Emeliano C. Camay, Jr. The core issue arose when Judge Marigomen, presiding over Branch 61 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Bogo City, Cebu, granted bail to Jose Andrino in a criminal case pending in Cebu City, despite Andrino not having a warrant of arrest at the time. Moreover, Judge Marigomen was not the judge where the criminal case was pending. This action prompted Tejano to file administrative charges against Judge Marigomen for grave abuse of authority and gross ignorance of the law, and against Camay for violating the Anti-Red Tape Act.

The factual backdrop reveals that Andrino was facing a criminal complaint for violation of the Anti-Violence Against Women and Children Act filed by Tejano. This case was raffled to Branch 20 of the RTC of Cebu City, presided over by Judge Bienvenido R. Saniel, Jr. However, before any warrant was issued, Andrino posted bail at Branch 61 in Bogo City, where Judge Marigomen presided. Camay, a utility worker at Branch 61, assisted Andrino in this process. Subsequently, Judge Marigomen ordered Andrino’s release, which Tejano argued was a blatant violation of the Rules of Court.

Judge Marigomen defended his actions by stating that he approved the bail bond in the exercise of his sound discretion, arguing that the stringent application of the Rules of Court may be relaxed in favor of the accused. He also cited the heavy backlog of cases as justification for hearing a civil case that was initially assigned to an assisting judge. On the other hand, Camay admitted assisting Andrino but denied being a fixer, claiming he was merely fulfilling his duties as a public employee. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) investigated the matter and found Judge Marigomen guilty of gross ignorance of the law and of violating Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars, while dismissing the complaint against Camay.

The Supreme Court, in its resolution, delved into the propriety of Judge Marigomen’s actions, particularly concerning the grant of bail and the handling of the civil case. The Court emphasized the constitutional mandate granting it administrative supervision over all courts and their personnel. This supervision includes ensuring that judges adhere to administrative orders and established procedures, and this principle is paramount in maintaining the integrity of the judicial system.

Specifically, the Court addressed Judge Marigomen’s decision to take cognizance of a civil case assigned to another judge, violating Administrative Order Nos. 113-2011 and 137-2012. The Court underscored that Judge Marigomen should have sought guidance from the Supreme Court rather than unilaterally assuming jurisdiction over the case. “After all, the Constitution grants this Court the power of administrative supervision over all courts and their personnel,” the Supreme Court stated, highlighting the importance of adhering to established procedures and seeking guidance when faced with procedural challenges.

The Court then turned to the more serious charge of gross ignorance of the law concerning the grant of bail. The Supreme Court referred to the definition of bail under Rule 114, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, which specifies that bail is security given for the release of a person in custody of the law. This definition implies that an accused must be in custody or otherwise deprived of liberty to be eligible for bail. The Court also quoted Section 17(a) of Rule 114, clarifying where bail may be filed:

Section 17. Bail, Where Filed. – (a) Bail in the amount fixed may be filed with the court where the case is pending, or in the absence or unavailability of the judge thereof, with any regional trial judge, metropolitan trial judge, municipal trial judge, or municipal circuit trial judge in the province, city, or municipality. If the accused is arrested in a province, city, or municipality other than where the case is pending, bail may also be filed with any regional trial court of said place, or if no judge thereof is available. with any metropolitan trial judge, municipal trial judge, or municipal circuit trial judge therein. (Emphasis supplied)

Building on this principle, the Supreme Court explained that there is a clear order of preference for where bail may be filed. First preference is the court where the case is pending. If the judge there is absent or unavailable, bail may be filed with any judge in the same province, city, or municipality. Only if the accused is arrested in a different province, city, or municipality can bail be filed with a judge in that location. The Court emphasized that Judge Marigomen violated this rule by granting bail despite not being the judge of the court where the case was pending, and because Andrino had not been arrested.

Moreover, the Supreme Court highlighted that Judge Marigomen failed to ascertain the absence or unavailability of Judge Saniel, the judge presiding over the case in Cebu City. This failure was a critical oversight, as proper coordination would have revealed whether Judge Saniel was available to handle the bail application. “Presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot be appreciated in favor of Judge Marigomen,” the Court declared, underscoring the judge’s dereliction of duty.

Addressing the withdrawal of the complaint by Prosecutor Tejano, the Supreme Court reiterated that the withdrawal of an administrative complaint does not divest the Court of its disciplinary authority over court personnel. The Court cited Nones v. Ormita, stating that “the faith and confidence of the people in their government and its agencies and instrumentalities need to be maintained. The people should not be made to depend upon the whims and caprices of complainants who, in a real sense, are only witnesses. To rule otherwise would subvert the fair and prompt administration of justice, as well as undermine the discipline of court personnel.” This principle is particularly relevant when the respondent is a judge, who is expected to have a high level of legal knowledge and adherence to judicial standards.

Considering that Judge Marigomen had previously been found guilty of gross ignorance of the law, the Supreme Court deemed a more severe penalty appropriate. While Rule 140, Section 11(A) of the Rules of Court provides for sanctions such as a fine of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00 for serious charges, the Court exercised its discretion to impose a higher fine of P100,000.00. The Court explained that Rule 140, Section 11(A) uses the permissive “may” in enumerating the imposable sanctions, allowing for flexibility in determining the appropriate penalty.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court found Judge Marigomen guilty of violating Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars, as well as gross ignorance of the law. He was fined a total of P120,000.00, P20,000.00 for the violation of Supreme Court rules and P100,000.00 for gross ignorance of the law. The complaint against Utility Worker Emeliano C. Camay, Jr. was dismissed for lack of merit, as there was no evidence to support the claim that he acted as a fixer for personal gain.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Judge Marigomen acted within his authority when he granted bail to Jose Andrino in a criminal case pending in another court, despite the absence of a warrant of arrest and without ensuring the unavailability of the presiding judge in that court. This raised questions of gross ignorance of the law and abuse of authority.
Why was Judge Marigomen charged with gross ignorance of the law?	Judge Marigomen was charged because he granted bail to Andrino without a warrant of arrest and without verifying the absence or unavailability of the judge in the court where Andrino’s criminal case was pending, violating established procedures. This constituted a significant departure from the rules governing bail applications.
What is the proper procedure for filing bail in a criminal case?	Bail should be filed in the court where the case is pending. If the judge is absent or unavailable, bail may be filed with another judge in the same province, city, or municipality. If the accused is arrested in a different location, bail may be filed with a judge in that location.
Can a judge grant bail if there is no warrant of arrest?	Generally, no. Bail is security for the release of a person in custody of the law. Without a warrant of arrest, the accused is not considered to be in legal custody, and bail is not typically appropriate.
What was the outcome of the complaint against Utility Worker Camay?	The complaint against Camay was dismissed for lack of merit. The Court found no evidence that Camay acted as a “fixer” or that he received any personal gain for assisting Andrino with the bail application.
Why did the Supreme Court proceed with the case despite the complainant withdrawing her complaint?	The Supreme Court emphasized that its disciplinary authority over court personnel is not contingent on the complainant’s wishes. Maintaining the integrity of the judicial system and upholding public trust are paramount, and the Court cannot be bound by a complainant’s decision to withdraw a case involving potential misconduct.
What penalties did the Supreme Court impose on Judge Marigomen?	The Supreme Court fined Judge Marigomen a total of P120,000.00. This included P20,000.00 for violating Supreme Court rules and P100,000.00 for gross ignorance of the law.
How does this case impact the judiciary?	This case reinforces the importance of strict adherence to procedural rules and jurisdictional limits within the judicial system. It serves as a reminder to judges to act within the bounds of their authority and to ensure that all legal processes are followed correctly to maintain the integrity of the courts.

This case serves as a crucial reminder to members of the judiciary about the significance of adhering to procedural rules and respecting jurisdictional boundaries. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores its commitment to maintaining the integrity of the judicial system and ensuring that judges act within the bounds of their authority. This ruling reinforces the need for judicial officers to exercise diligence and prudence in the performance of their duties, ultimately fostering public trust and confidence in the administration of justice.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Prosecutor Ivy A. Tejano v. Presiding Judge Antonio D. Marigomen, A.M. No. RTJ-17-2492, September 26, 2017