"x x x.
Hold-departure orders shall be issued only in criminal cases within the exclusive jurisdiction of the regional trial courts.
Clearly, criminal cases within the exclusive jurisdiction of first level courts, i.e., MeTCs, MTCs and MTCCs, do not fall within the ambit of the circular. It was therefore a mistake on the part of respondent judge to have issued one in the instant case. Indeed, it exposed his ignorance of the circular. The absence of malice, bad faith or malicious intent on his part is not sufficient to completely absolve him of liability.
It bears noting that Circular No. 37-97 is not new. It took effect on October 1, 2001 and several cases involving violations thereof have been dealt with by this Court before. Evidently, respondent judge’s issuance of the hold-departure order suggested a failure to live up to the Code of Judicial Conduct which enjoins judges “to be faithful to the law and to maintain professional competence.” Only by diligent and conscientious effort in keeping abreast with developments in our legal system can respondent judge live up to his duties.[7]
A judge owes it to the public and to the legal profession to know the law he is supposed to apply in a given controversy. He is called upon to exhibit more than just a perfunctory understanding of statutes and procedural rules. Party litigants will have great faith in the administration of justice if judges cannot justly be accused of apparent deficiency in their grasp of the legal principles.[8] Service in the judiciary means continuous study and research on the law from beginning to end.[9] The study of law is a never ending and ceaseless process.[10] Respondent judge therefore cannot be spared punishment for his infraction. Judges should at all times be vigilant in their quest for new developments in the law so they can perform their duties and functions with passion and commitment, lest public confidence in the judiciary be eroded by the incompetent and irresponsible conduct of judges.[11]
Considering the evidence and attendant circumstances in the instant case, respondent judge regrettably failed to comply with the required judicial standard.
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered:
1. finding respondent Judge Cornelio T. Jaca, Acting Presiding Judge of the 1st MCTC, Bantayan- Sta. Fe Madredejos, Cebu , liable for violating Circular No. 39-97. Accordingly, he is ordered to pay a FINE of P10,000 as recommended by then Court Administrator Benipayo, with aWARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely;
2. DISMISSING the charges of falsification and replacement/insertion of affidavits and other documents in the records of Criminal Case No. BSM-97-2301 against respondent judge and the clerk of court for insufficiency of evidence.
SO ORDERED.
x x x."
See - [A.M. No. MTJ-01-1351. January 27, 2004 ] - DR. JOHN M.W. GRIEVE, complainant, vs. JUDGE CORNELIO T. JACA, respondent.
