University of The Philippines College of Law: Violations of Rules 2.01, 3.01 and 3.02 of The Code of Judicial Conduct
University of The Philippines College of Law: Violations of Rules 2.01, 3.01 and 3.02 of The Code of Judicial Conduct
3D
RELEVANT FACTS
Judge Manuel T. Muro was charged by State Prosecutors with Ignorance of the Law, Grave Misconduct and
violations of Rules 2.01, 3.01 and 3.02 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Muro issued an Order dismissing 11 cases filed by the complainant prosecutors against accused Mrs.
Imelda Marcos for Violation of Central Bank Foreign Exchange Restrictions (under CB Circular 960).
He issued said Order solely on the basis of newspaper reports of the Philippine Daily Inquirer and the
Daily Globe which communicated the announcement by the President that he will be lifting all foreign
exchange restrictions.
According to him, the reported announcement of the Executive had the effect of repealing Central Bank
Circular 960. Since there is nothing more held as a violation, his court no longer had jurisdiction. Thus,
motu proprio dismissal was in order.
ARGUMENTS PRESENTED
COMPLAINANTS DEFENSE
Basing an order on a mere newspaper account There was no need to await publication of the
of an advanced announcement was to act Central Bank Circular repealing the existing law on
prematurely and in indecent haste. In so doing, foreign exchange controls for the simple reason that
the judge had no way of determining the full the public announcement made by the President in
intent of the new CB Circular and whether the several newspapers of general circulation lifting
same provided for exceptions applicable to foreign exchange controls was total, absolute,
persons who had pending criminal cases. without qualification, and was immediately effective;
Taking judicial notice of a mere newspaper That having acted only on the basis of such
account (supposedly as a matter of public announcement, he cannot be blamed for relying on
knowledge) as basis for an order of dismissal is the erroneous statement of the President that the
highly irregular, erroneous and misplaced. How new foreign exchange rules rendered moot and
can the Honorable Judge take judicial notice of academic the cases filed against Mrs. Marcos, and
something which has not yet come into force which was corrected only on August 17, 1992 but
and the contents, shape and tenor of which published in the newspapers on August 18, 1992, and
have not yet been published and ascertained to only after Judge Muro had issued his order of
be the basis of judicial action? dismissal dated August 13, 1992; that the President
Not even requiring first that the prosecution was ill-advised by his advisers and, instead of
comment on the effect of the aforesaid Central rescuing the Chief Executive from embarrassment by
Bank Circular on the pending cases before assuming responsibility for errors in the latter’s
dismissing the same denied the Government announcement, they chose to toss the blame for the
their right to due process; Similarly, dismissal consequence of their failures to him who merely
without even waiting for the defense to file a acted on the basis of the announcements of the
University of the Philippines College of Law
3D
motion to quash the information placed his President which had become of public knowledge;
motives suspect. That it was discretionary on him to take judicial
notice of the facts which are of public knowledge,
pursuant to Section 2 of Rule 129;
AS APPLIED:
Judge Muro, on the basis of a mere newspaper account, which is sometimes even
University of the Philippines College of Law
3D
referred to as hearsay evidence twice removed, took judicial notice of the supposed
lifting of foreign exchange controls, a matter which was not and cannot be
considered of common knowledge or of general notoriety.
Worse, he took cognizance of an administrative regulation which was not yet in force
when the order of dismissal was issued.
Judicial notice cannot be taken of a statute before it becomes effective. A law which
is not yet in force and hence, still inexistent, cannot be of common knowledge
capable of ready and unquestionable demonstration.
Evidently, it was impossible for respondent judge, and it was definitely not proper for
him, to have taken cognizance of CB Circular No. 1353, when the same was not yet in
force at the time the improvident order of dismissal was issued.
W/N Judge Muro YES, Judge Muro is adjudged guilty of gross ignorance of the law and is hereby
should be held dismissed from the service.
administratively
liable? RULES
A judge should not only render a just, correct and impartial decision but should do so
in such a manner as to be free from any suspicion as to its fairness and impartiality
and as to his integrity. While a judge should possess proficiency in law in order that
he can competently construe and enforce the law, it is more important that he
should act and behave in such a manner that the parties before him should have
confidence in his impartiality.
APPLIED:
The assertion of respondent judge that there was no need to await publication of
Circular No. 1353 for the reason that the public announcement made by the
President in several newspapers of general circulation lifting foreign exchange
controls is total, absolute, without qualification, and immediately effective, is beyond
comprehension. As a judge of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, respondent is
supposed to be well-versed in the elementary legal mandates on the publication of
laws before they take effect.
This is not a simple case of a misapplication or erroneous interpretation of the law.
The very act of respondent judge in altogether dismissing sua sponte the eleven
criminal cases without even a motion to quash having been filed by the accused, and
without at least giving the prosecution the basic opportunity to be heard on the
matter by way of a written comment or on oral argument, is not only a blatant denial
of elementary due process to the Government but is palpably indicative of bad faith
and partiality.
RULING
ACCORDINGLY, on the foregoing premises and considerations, the Court finds respondent Judge Manuel T. Muro
guilty of gross ignorance of the law. He is hereby DISMISSED from the service, such dismissal to carry with it
cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of leave credits and retirement benefits, and disqualification from
University of the Philippines College of Law
3D
reemployment in the government service.
Respondent is hereby ordered to CEASE and DESIST immediately
from rendering any judgment or order, or continuing any judicial action or proceeding whatsoever, effective
upon receipt of this decision.
SEPARATE OPINION
Dissent of Justice Bellosillo
In the absence of fraud, dishonesty, or corruption, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject
to disciplinary action, even though such acts are erroneous.
The order issued by respondent judge has already been reversed by the appellate court on appeal which has
become final. No damage has been caused except that complainants had to avail of a judicial remedy to
correct the mistake. But, the overturned order alone, does not necessarily make respondent judge liable
administratively, much more civilly or criminally. To be answerable, the fault of the judge, if any, must be
gross or patent, malicious, deliberate or done in bad faith.
Bad faith cannot be ascribed to respondent judge for I see no insidious intentions on his part. If he insists
that there really is no need to await the publication of Circular No. 1353, as he does here, it merely shows
that he sincerely believes that there is indeed no necessity to await publication.
Dismissing motu proprio the eleven criminal cases without affording the prosecution the opportunity to be
heard on the matter, erroneous though it may be, is not inescapably indicative of bad faith. The immediate
dismissal of the charges is a necessary consequence of the belief that since the restrictions were lifted, no
law was then being violated. It is an elementary principle in procedural law and statutory construction that
the repeal of a penal law deprives the court of jurisdiction to punish persons charged with a violation of the
old law prior to its repeal. Thus, where the crime no longer exists, prosecution of the person charged under
the old law cannot be had and the action should be dismissed.
There is no extrinsic evidence which shows that the assailed order of the respondent judge was inspired by a
conscious and corrupt intent to do a disservice and commit an atrocity, and thus his dismissal is uncalled for.