Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Peralta, J.:
FACTS:
Two administrative cases were filed against Judge Bitas, a Regional Trial Court Judge of Tacloban City.
The first case came about when one Danilo Miralles was charged with Qualified Trafficking and the same filed with the sala of
Judge Bitas, in which the respondent judge issued an order finding probable cause to indict Danilo, but allowing him to post bail in
the three cases. Judge Bitas was allegedly showed bias in favor of the accused Miralles
o When he did not issue a warrant of arrest even when the Information have been filed charging Miralles with non-
bailable cases
o When he reduced bail even without a motion to fix bail without giving the opposition an opportunity to file its
objections
The second charge was filed by Prosecutor Jorda involves the hearing on the Petition for Involuntary Commitment of minor victim
Margie Baldoza to the DSWD, wherein the judge allegedly propounded a series of questions tending to mitigate Danilo’s role in
the case, which according to the prosecution went beyond judicial authority and discretion.
A motion for inhibition was filed against the judge. During the hearing, the judge allegedly publicly humiliated Pros. Jorda and
berated her for filing of the motion. He then told her he does not want to see her in his court, and prevented her from conducting
cross-examination.
ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Bitas be liable for grave abuse of authority, irregularity in the performance of official duties, bias and
partiality?
RULING:
Canon 4: Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all the activities of a judge.
This Court has long held that court officials and employees are placed with a heavy burden and responsibility of keeping the faith
of the public. Any impression of impropriety, misdeed or negligence in the performance of official functions must be avoided. This
Court shall not countenance any conduct, act or omission on the part of all those involved in the administration of justice which
would violate the norm of public accountability and diminish the faith of the people in the Judiciary.
Under Section 8, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC, gross ignorance of the law or procedure is
classified as a serious charge which constitutes sanctions.
The actuations of respondent judge towards the complainants, as shown by his use of abusive and insulting words against
complainants in open court, and his correspondence with the Court, are evident of his PARTIALITY to the accused.
WHEEFORE, JUDGE CRISOLOGO BITAS was SUSPENDED from the service for three months and one day without pay instead of a fine of
P20,000 for each case, as recommended by Investigating Justice. He was WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense will
warrant the imposition of a more severe penalty.