Enriquez v.

Caminade
Facts:

Imelda Enriquez charged Judge Caminade with Gross Misconduct, Knowingly

Rendering an Unjust Judgment and Gross Ignorance of the Law relative to criminal
case, People v. Sherwin Que.

Complainant claims that respondent was grossly mistaken when he ruled, in effect, that
the investigating prosecutor cannot file a criminal information before the expiration of
the 15-day period within which the accused are allowed by the Revised Rules of Court
to move for reconsideration or petition for review of an adverse ‘Resolution’.

Respondent cited Sales v. Sandiganbayan as his legal basis, in ruling on the criminal
case. However, such case is only intended for the Rules of Procedures of Ombudsman.
Clearly, respondent failed to read the case in its entirety, or he grossly misapprehended
the doctrine it had laid down.

Ruling:

Judge Anacleto L. Caminade is found guilty of gross ignorance of the law.

The New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary requires judges to
be embodiments of judicial competence and diligence. [9] Those who accept this exalted
position owe the public and this Court the ability to be proficient in the law and the duty to
maintain professional competence at all times.[10] Indeed, competence is a mark of a good
judge. This exalted position entails a lot of responsibilities, foremost of which is
proficiency in the law. One cannot seek refuge in a mere cursory knowledge of statutes
and procedural rules.[11]

Judges are not common individuals whose gross errors men forgive and time
forgets.[15] For when they display an utter lack of familiarity with the rules, they erode the
confidence of the public in the competence of our courts.[16] Such lack is gross
ignorance of the law. Verily, failure to follow basic legal commands and rules constitutes
gross ignorance of the law, of which no one is excused, and surely not a judge.
We emphasize that ignorance of the law is the mainspring of injustice. For this reason,
we always remind the members of the bench of their duty to be faithful to the law and to
maintain professional competence. Judges are called upon to exhibit more than just
cursory acquaintance with statutes and procedural rules. Basic rules must be at the
palms of their hands. Their inexcusable failure to observe the basic laws and rules will
render them administratively liable. Where the law involved -- as in this case -- is simple
and elementary, lack of conversance therewith constitutes gross ignorance of the law.
 Sangguniang Panlalawigan v. Albano

Facts:
In the course of his investigation, Judge Cabebe uncovered around forty (40) criminal
cases dismissed after preliminary investigation and did not reach the preliminary
investigation proper.[4] In all these cases, respondent judge failed to transmit the
resolution and records to the provincial prosecutor upon conclusion of the
proceedings. In addition, Judge Cabebe discovered that respondent judge issued
warrants of arrest without examining the complainant and his witnesses in writing and
under oath, in violation of the Constitution.
Respondent judge averred that he first conducted a preliminary examination. In the
cases cited by Judge Cabebe, respondent judge found no probable cause for the
issuance of a warrant, hence he did not proceed to the preliminary investigation
proper. He argued that since there were no preliminary investigations conducted and
concluded, there were no records to be forwarded to the provincial prosecutor for the
filing of the corresponding information.[7] Respondent judge further argued that (he) may
not be held liable for improper disposition of cases under preliminary investigation
because the acts imputed against him pertains to his judicial capacity that are not
subject to disciplinary power.
Ruling:
Respondent Judge Efren F. Albano is DISMISSED from the service.
The records show that respondent judge has violated the rules on preliminary
investigation and issuance of a warrant of arrest since the start of his term as municipal
judge in Batac, Ilocos Norte in September 1991. The gross ignorance of respondent
judge has immensely prejudiced the administration of justice. Parties adversely affected
by his rulings dismissing their complaints after preliminary investigation have been
denied their statutory right of review that should have been conducted by the provincial
prosecutor. His practice of issuing warrants of arrest without examining the
complainants and their witnesses is improvident and could have unnecessarily deprived
the accused of their liberty however momentary it may be. Our Constitution requires that
all members of the judiciary must be of proven competence, integrity, probity and
independence.[17] Respondent judges stubborn adherence to improper procedures and
his constant violation of the constitutional provision requiring him to personally examine
the complainant and the witness in writing and under oath before issuing a warrant of
arrest makes him unfit to discharge the functions of a judge