SECOND DIVISION
[A.M. No. RTJ-97-1385. January 8, 1998]
RAMON T. ARDOSA, complainant, vs. JUDGE LOLITA O. GAL-LANG and CLERK OF
COURT NENITA R. GRIJALDO, Branch 44, Regional Trial Court, Manila, respondents.
DECISION
MENDOZA, J.:
This is a complaint against Judge Lolita O. Gal-Lang of the Regional Trial Court at
Manila, Branch 44, for grave abuse of authority, manifest bias, gross ignorance of the
law, knowingly rendering an unjust judgment and grave misconduct and Atty. Nenita R.
Grijaldo, branch clerk of court, for grave misconduct, gross ignorance, disrespect for the
Rules of Court, malfeasance, and misfeasance in public office.
Complainant was complainant in Criminal Case No. 95-146559 for illegal recruitment,
which was assigned to respondent Judge Gal-lang. The prosecutor initially
recommended bail for P8,000.00 for the provisional release of the accused but later
changed his recommendation to no bail.
On December 11, 1995, the accused filed a motion for reinvestigation and prayed that
in the meantime issuance of the warrant of arrest be held in abeyance. It appears,
however, that the warrant had already been issued on that day, although it could not be
served on the accused (Rene C. Tabia, Ruben S. Fajardo, Per Jurgensen, Birger
Jurgensen, Jose M. Nieto, Edwin Marasigan, Franklin Roger Lee Sun, Ricardo J.
Romulo and Ramon Espejo, of the Maersk Tabacalera Crewing Agency) as they were
not at the Maersk office on 900 Romualdez St., Ermita, Manila.
Upon learning of the issuance of the warrant against them, the accused filed on
December 13, 1995 an Urgent Motion to Recall the Warrant of Arrest. They alleged that
the warrant of arrest had been prematurely issued because they had a pending
opposition to the issuance of a warrant of arrest and motion for reinvestigation. The
accused argued that some of them were not officers and members of the board of the
Maersk Tabacalera yet when the act being complained of was allegedly committed.i[1]
Since the prosecutor was present and had been furnished copy of the motion, the judge
decided to hear the motion on the same day it was filed. Complainant also happened to
be in court at that time to file a motion for the issuance of a hold order and an entry of
appearance as private prosecutor. He was persuaded by respondent clerk of court,
Nenita Grijaldo, to attend the hearing on the motion.
Complainant appeared in court but requested that the hearing be reset on another day
because he had not been informed of the hearing nor furnished copies of the motion