ESTHER P.
MAGLEO vs. PRESIDING JUDGE ROWENA DE JUAN-QUINAGORAN and BRANCH CLERK OF COURT
ATTY. ADONIS LAURE, BOTH OF BRANCH 166, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, PASIG CITY, A.M.
No. RTJ-12-2336 (Formerly A.M. OCA-IPl No. 11-3695-RTJ), November 12, 2014
“x x x.
Claim of
Violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct for issuing a Bench Warrant
It must be noted that complainant was only granted
provisional liberty when she applied for bail. Such provisional liberty could
be taken away if she would violate any of the undertakings stated therein. One
of the conditions for bail is that the accused shall appear before the proper
court whenever required by the court or the Rules of Court.
As a consequence of failing to attend the trial when
so required, a bench warrant was issued against complainant. A bench warrant is defined as a writ issued
directly by a judge to a law-enforcement officer, especially for the arrest of
a person who has been held in contempt, has disobeyed a subpoena, or has to
appear for a hearing or trial. The provision on bench warrant is expressed
under Section 9, Rule 71 of the Rules
of Court which states that "[w]hen a respondent released on bail fails to
appear on the day fixed for the hearing, the court may issue another order of
arrest or may order the bond for his appearance to be forfeited and
confiscated, or both." (Underscoring
supplied)
Jurisprudence dictates that the primary requisite
before a bench warrant shall be issued is that the absent-party was duly informed of the hearing date but
unjustifiably failed to attend so. As stated above, complainant was undeniably
notified of the June 8, 2011 hearing but she failed to attend.
Complainant also averred that respondent judge
committed erroneous conduct (1) when she issued a bench warrant without
specifically stating the amount of bail bond and (2) for not motu proprio
lifting the bail bond when complainant’s son and lawyer showed their
willingness to apply for bail.
According to respondent judge, the June 9, 2011 order
of arrest failed to state a bail bond because complainant jumped bail by
failing to appear in court for hearing on June 8, 2011. The Court finds this
acceptable because when an accused fails to appear in person as required, the
bond shall be declared forfeited. Also,
it is not required by the Rules of Court that the amount of new bail bond be
stated in the bench warrant. The Court cannot chastise respondent judge for
an act not required by the Rules. Absent
any abuse of discretion, it is sufficient that the bail bond was fixed after
complainant was arrested. Such would bethe proper time for the judge to
consider whether to increase, decrease or retain the amount of bail based on
the guidelines.
Moreover, there is nothing in the Rules which mandates
a judge to motu proprio lift the bench warrant once the accused expresses his
intent to be released on bail. Without any provision to the contrary, Section 1, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court
governs such that a motion must be filed to seek affirmative relief. In the
present case, respondent judge acted within the scope of her authority when she
required complainant’s son and lawyer to file an ex parte motion to lift the
order of arrest. When the motion was filed and the prosecutor did not express
any objection, respondent judge deemed it fit to impose the same amount of bail
at P40,000.00. Respondent judge immediately entertained complainant’s son and
lawyer when they came to her branch despite her scheduled hearing and as a
result, complainant was released on that same day.
In the absence of a showing that the acts complained
of were done with malice or intention to violate the law or disregard the Rules
of Court or for some corrupt motive, they would, at best, constitute errors of
judgment which do not amount to serious misconduct.
X x x.”
