2/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 245

VOL. 245, JUNE 21, 1995 219

Gallo vs. Cordero

*
A.M. No. MTJ-95-1035. June 21, 1995.

EMETERIO GALLO through Counsel Atty. Francisco C.

Aurillo, complainant, vs. JUDGE JOSE CORDERO, MTC,
Babatñgon, Leyte, respondent.

Courts; Judges; Squatting; Where a criminal case within the

original and exclusive jurisdiction of a Municipal Trial Court is
filed, the presiding judge’s job is to determine at the outset if there
is sufficient ground to hold the accused for trial on the basis of the
complaint and affidavits submitted.—To be sure, Criminal Case
No. 2194 was filed invoking the original and exclusive jurisdiction
of respondent judge’s court, considering that under P.D. No. 772
the offense charged is punishable by imprisonment ranging from
6 months to 1 year or a fine of not less than P1,000.00 nor more
than P5,000.00. Hence, in accordance with Rule 112, §9(b), in
relation to §3(a) thereof, respondent’s job was to determine at the
outset if there was sufficient ground to hold the accused for trial,
on the basis of the complaint and affidavits submitted. If there
was no sufficient ground to hold the accused for trial, the judge
should dismiss the complaint or information, otherwise, he should
issue a warrant of arrest after personally examining the
complainant and his witnesses in writing and under oath in the
form of searching questions and answers.
Same; Same; It is improper for a judge to meet privately with
the accused without the presence of the complainant.—Respondent
judge also opened himself to charges of partiality and bias by
meeting privately with the four accused. He says that he merely
wanted to apprise them of their constitutional right. Whatever his
purpose was, it was improper for respondent judge to meet them
without the presence of complainant. As already stated, the
subpoena required the accused to appear in court on August 31,
1994 to give their testimony. But no hearing was set on that date.
In fact complainant’s son, Roger, merely

________________

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168fbdf3d8b511f9bc8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/9
2/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 245

* SECOND DIVISION.

220

220 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Gallo vs. Cordero

chanced on the accused in the office of the judge on August 31,

1994 because he had been sent by his father to deliver the latter’s
letter inquiring whether the judge had yet issued a warrant for
the arrest of the accused.
Same; Same; A judge should so behave at all times as to
promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the
judiciary.—Thus, respondent judge not only has shown gross
ignorance of law and procedure but has also failed to live up to the
norm that “judges should not only be impartial but should also
appear impartial.” He thus violated Canon 2 of the Code of
Judicial Conduct which provides that “a judge should avoid
impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.”
In the words of Rule 2.01 of that Canon, “A judge should so
behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the
integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.”
Same; Same; Retirement; Moot and Academic; The
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over the administrative case is
not lost by the mere fact that the respondent public official had
ceased in office during the pendency of his case.—Respondent
judge was compulsorily retired on March 11, 1995, after reaching
the age of 70. This fact, however, does not render this case moot
and academic. As held in Zarate v. Judge Romanillos: [T]he
jurisdiction that was ours at the time of the filing of the
administrative complaint was not lost by the mere fact that the
respondent public official had ceased in office during the pendency
of his case. The Court retains its jurisdiction either to pronounce
the respondent official innocent of the charges or declare him
guilty thereof. A contrary rule would be fraught with injustices
and pregnant with dreadful and dangerous implications. . . . If
innocent, respondent official merits vindication of his name and
integrity as he leaves the government which he has served well
and faithfully; if guilty, he deserves to receive the corresponding
censure and a penalty proper and imposable under the situation.

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court. Non-

feasance, Bias, Gross Ignorance of the Law, Graft and
Favoritism.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168fbdf3d8b511f9bc8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/9
2/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 245

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

MENDOZA, J.:

This is a sworn complaint dated September 8, 1994 of

Emeterio Gallo, charging Judge Jose Cordero of the
Municipal Trial Court
221

VOL. 245, JUNE 21, 1995 221

Gallo vs. Cordero

of Babatñgon, Leyte with non-feasance, manifest bias,

gross ignorance of the law, and graft and rank favoritism.
The complaint is made in connection with Criminal Case
No. 2194 entitled “People v. Cristuto Barreta, Alberto
Macabata, Danilo Morillo, and Rodolfo Villanueva,” which
complainant filed in respondent judge’s court on August 23,
1994 for violation of P.D. No. 772, otherwise known as the
Anti-Squatting Law. The criminal complaint alleged:

That several years ago, at Barangay Bagong Silang, municipality

of Babatñgon, Province of Leyte, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, all
taking advantage of the absence or tolerance of the land owners,
did then and there, succeeded in occupying and possessing certain
portions of the property of the latter against their will for
residential and small farming purposes, and have refused to
vacate the property despite demands for them to do so.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
1
On August 26, 1994, respondent issued a subpoena to
complainant requiring him to appear and to testify
regarding his affidavit and to bring with him documents
attesting to his ownership of the land. Complainant
appeared as directed on August 30, 1994 in respondent’s
office. According 2 to complainant’s affidavit dated
September 7, 1994, the following transpired:

That on August 30, 1994 I saw Honorable Judge Jose Cordero in

his office, having been summoned to appear before him on that
day; That he then asked me if I have papers of ownership of land,
such as tax declaration, and I said yes but did not bring them as
this was no trial; and besides, he already had the records
submitted by the chief of police;
That since he insisted on seeing our tax declaration, with this
permission I went to the office of the municipal assessor, secured
a certified copy of the tax declaration of land in Bagong Silang,

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168fbdf3d8b511f9bc8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/9
2/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 245

and gave it to him; and noting the area to be 21 hectares the

Judge commented that ours is quite a big tract of land;
That when I asked the Judge if the accused have already been
arrested, he said No; so I said, what about this case of ours? And
he

_______________

1 Comment, Annex 6.
2 Complaint, Annex C.

222

222 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Gallo vs. Cordero

asked what I really wanted. When I said I want them ejected from
our land the Judge said: “No, you cannot eject tenants now under
the law.” I countered that the four accused are not tenants, but
the Judge said, “Even then, nobody can eject them.”
That disappointed at his answers which clearly were biased for
the accused, I asked permission to leave, which was granted. But
he added that I should see him again on Sept. 14, the day before
trial which he set for Sept. 15; . . .

The following day, according to complainant, his son Roger

Gallo went to respondent’s office to deliver his letter in
which he inquired from the judge whether he had already
issued a warrant of arrest against the accused; that upon
entering the office, Roger saw respondent
3
conversing with
the accused in the criminal case; that an aide of
respondent received the letter and opened it; that
respondent did not however say anything nor reply to
complainant’s letter; that when Roger left the office,
respondent judge
4
and the four accused continued their
conversation.
Complainant charges that (a) in violation of Art. 207
(malicious delay in the administration of justice) and Art.
208 (negligence and tolerance in the prosecution of crimes)
of the Revised Penal Code respondent judge refused to
order the arrest of the accused in Criminal Case No. 2194;
(b) that respondent privately conferred with the accused in
his office on August 31, 1994 which “logically and naturally
arouses suspicion of graft and rank favoritism;” and (c) that
he acted with bias and ignorance of the law in telling
complainant, “You cannot eject tenants now under the
law,” and that even if the accused were not tenants,
“nobody can eject them.” Complainant Gallo prays that (1)
respondent be preventively suspended or ordered to inhibit
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168fbdf3d8b511f9bc8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/9
2/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 245

himself from hearing the case and that another judge be

assigned to handle the case and (2) after due hearing,
respondent be dismissed from the service.

_______________

3 It appears that respondent judge also subpoenaed the accused in the

criminal case to appear before him on August 31, 1994.
4 Per Roger’s affidavit dated September 4, 1992, Complaint, Annex D.

223

VOL. 245, JUNE 21, 1995 223

Gallo vs. Cordero

In his comment, respondent alleges that he did not order

the arrest of the accused for the following reasons: (1) the
complaint charges no offense under P.D. No. 772 because of
“the absence [of] recital in the body of [the] complaint that
the property occupied or possessed is within the 5
urban
communities” per the ruling in People v. Echavez, that6 the
crime of squatting applied only to urban communities, (2)
the complaint is defective because of its failure to state the
name of the offended party and the date and time of the
commission of the offense; (3) respondent acted in
compliance with Administrative Circular No. 8-92 which
“reiterates to all trial court judges the need for a careful
consideration of the proper application of the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (RA 6657) to avoid
conflict of jurisdiction with the Department of Agrarian
Reform Adjudication Boards,” and (4) he thought that
complainant Gallo was merely pressuring the accused to
vacate the property through the filing of a criminal case
against them.
Respondent also contends that he cannot be liable under
Art. 208 of the Revised Penal Code, because this provision
applies to the failure of public prosecutors to prosecute for
law violations. Respondent denied uttering the statements
attributed to him allegedly showing that he had prejudged
the case, the truth being that he merely asked complainant
certain questions
7
to ascertain compliance with Rule 110 §§
6 and 11 of the Revised

_______________

5 95 SCRA 663 (1980).

6 This doctrine announced in the Echavez case was later overturned in
Jumawan v. Eviota, 234 SCRA 524 (1994) decided on July 28, 1994, which

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168fbdf3d8b511f9bc8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/9
2/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 245

held that under P.D. No. 772, “the question is not whether the land is
located in an urban or in a rural area but whether it is for residential,
commercial, or any other purpose.”
7 These provisions state:

§6. Sufficiency of complaint or information.—A complaint or information is

sufficient if it states the name of the accused; the designation of the offense by the
statute; the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense; the name
of the offended party; the approximate time of the commission of the offense, and
the place wherein the offense was committed.
When an offense is committed by more than one person, all of them shall be
included in the complaint or information.

224

224 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Gallo vs. Cordero

Rules on Criminal Procedure.

As for his alleged “private conference” with the accused,
respondent claims that he merely tried to advise them of
their right to a counsel de oficio in case they could not
afford to hire a lawyer. With regard to complainant’s
demand for his inhibition, respondent alleges that there
was no basis for complainant to say that he could not
expect justice from him (respondent judge) because the case
had just been set for the arraignment of the accused.
To be sure, Criminal Case No. 2194 was filed invoking
the original and exclusive jurisdiction of respondent judge’s
court, considering that under P.D. No. 772 the offense
charged is punishable by imprisonment ranging from 6
months to 1 year or 8a fine of not less than P1,000.00 nor
more than P5,000.00. Hence, in accordance with Rule 112,
§9(b), in relation to §3(a) thereof, respondent’s job was to
determine at the outset if there was sufficient ground to
hold the accused for trial, on the basis of the complaint and
affidavits submitted. If there was no sufficient ground to
hold the accused for trial, the judge should dismiss the
complaint or information, otherwise, he should issue a
warrant of arrest after personally examining the
complainant and his witnesses in writing and under oath
in the form of searching questions and answers.
Apparently, respondent judge found sufficient ground to
hold the accused in the criminal case for trial. That is why
subpoenas were issued to the complainant and the accused.
In the case of the complainant, the subpoena required him
to testify and bring with him the papers showing his title to
the land. But respondent judge did not examine him with a

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168fbdf3d8b511f9bc8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/9
2/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 245

view to the issuance of a warrant of arrest. Instead, as he

now says in his comment, he

_______________

§ 11. Time of the commission of the offense.—It is not necessary to state in the
complaint or information the precise time at which the offense was committed
except when time is a material ingredient of the offense, but the act may be
alleged to have been committed at any time as near to the actual date at which the
offense was committed as the information or complaint will permit.

8 See B.P. Blg. 129, §32, as amended by R.A. No. 7691.

225

VOL. 245, JUNE 21, 1995 225

Gallo vs. Cordero

subpoenaed complainant only to determine the sufficiency

of the complaint. Yet, respondent likewise required the
accused to present their evidence the next day, August 31,
1994.
It would thus appear that respondent was confused
about what to do. He says in his comment that he found the
criminal complaint to be insufficient because it does not
state the time of commission of the offense and the name of
the offended party. He also contends that it does not charge
an offense because
9
in accordance with the ruling in People
v. Echavez, the offense punished under P.D. No. 772 is
committed only in10 urban communities, although in
Jumawan v. Eviota we overruled People v. Echavez and
held that what is punished by the law is squatting on land
which is used for residential, commercial or other purposes.
Be that as it may, however, what respondent should have
done was to dismiss the criminal case. The fact, however, is
that he did not dismiss the complaint; neither did he, on
the other hand, order the arrest of the accused in that case.
Respondent judge also opened himself to charges of
partiality and bias by meeting privately with the four
accused. He says that he merely wanted to apprise them of
their constitutional right. Whatever his purpose was, it was
improper for respondent judge to meet them without the
presence of complainant. As already stated, the subpoena
required the accused to appear in court on August 31, 1994
to give their testimony. But no hearing was set on that
date. In fact complainant’s son, Roger, merely chanced on
the accused in the office of the judge on August 31, 1994
because he had been sent by his father to deliver the

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168fbdf3d8b511f9bc8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/9
2/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 245

latter’s letter inquiring whether the judge had yet issued a

warrant for the arrest of the accused.
Thus, respondent judge not only has shown gross
ignorance of law and procedure but has also failed to live
up to the norm that “judges should 11
not only be impartial
but should also appear impartial.” He thus violated Canon
2 of the Code of Judicial

_______________

9 Supra note 5.
10 Supra note 6.
11 Fernandez v. Presbitero, 79 SCRA 60, 64 (1977). In this case, in
which respondent judge conducted the preliminary examination in the
house of a relative of the political opponent of the accused’s father, this

226

226 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Gallo vs. Cordero

Conduct which provides that “a judge should avoid

impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all
activities.” In the words of Rule 2.01 of that Canon, “A
judge should so behave at all times as to promote public
confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the
judiciary.”
Respondent judge was compulsorily retired on March 11,
1995, after reaching the age of 70. This fact, however, does
not render this case 12
moot and academic. As held in Zarate
v. Judge Romanillos:

[T]he jurisdiction that was ours at the time of the filing of the
administrative complaint was not lost by the mere fact that the
respondent public official had ceased in office during the pendency
of his case. The Court retains its jurisdiction either to pronounce
the respondent official innocent of the charges or declare him
guilty thereof. A contrary rule would be fraught with injustices
and pregnant with dreadful and dangerous implications. . . . If
innocent, respondent official merits vindication of his name and
integrity as he leaves the government which he has served well
and faithfully; if guilty, he deserves to receive the corresponding
censure and a penalty proper and imposable under the situation.

ACCORDINGLY, a FINE of P10,000.00 is imposed on

respondent Judge Jose Cordero, the same to be deducted
from whatever retirement benefits he may be entitled to
receive from the government.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168fbdf3d8b511f9bc8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/9
2/17/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 245

SO ORDERED.

     Narvasa (C.J., Chairman), Regalado and Puno, JJ.,

concur.

Respondent Judge meted a P10,000 fine.

_______________

Court through Justice Concepcion, Jr., said: “Impartiality is not a

technical conception. It is a state of mind and consequently, the
appearance of impartiality is an essential manifestation of its reality.”
12 A.M. Nos. RTJ-94-1140 and RTJ-94-1218, March 23, 1995 citing
People v. Valenzuela, 135 SCRA 712 (1985) and Perez v. Abiera, 64 SCRA
302 (1975).

227

VOL. 245, JUNE 21, 1995 227

Esmeralda-Baroy vs. Cosca

Notes.—A court will not determine moot questions or

abstract propositions. (Espina vs. Provincial Board of
Southern Leyte, 164 SCRA 464 [1988])
Petitioners being mere squatters on the land, they did
not acquire a vested right to lease or buy the property.
(Caballero vs. Court of Appeals, 218 SCRA 56 [1993])

———o0o———

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000168fbdf3d8b511f9bc8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/9