4/30/2021
E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly
413 Phil. 428
FIRST DIVISION
[ A.M. No. MTJ-01-1349, July 12, 2001 ]
BERNADETTE MONDEJAR, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE MARINO S.
BUBAN, MTCC, TACLOBAN CITY BRANCH 1, RESPONDENT.
RESOLUTION
KAPUNAN, J.:
In a sworn letter complaint dated May 31, 1999, complainant Bernadette Mondejar
charged Judge Marino S. Buban, MTCC, Tacloban City, Branch 1, with gross ignorance of
the law, partiality, serious irregularity and grave misconduct relative to Criminal Case
No. 98-07-CR-133 entitled "People of the Philippines v. Bernadette Mondejar and
Arlette Mondejar" for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. She alleged that respondent
judge issued a "hold departure order" against her on October 23, 1998 in violation of
Supreme Court Circular No. 39-97 which provides that "hold departure orders" shall be
issued only in criminal cases within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Regional Trial
Courts. She further alleged that respondent judge did not give her an opportunity to be
heard before issuing the questioned order.
When required to comment on the matter, respondent judge admitted having issued
said order because he was not aware of the Supreme Court Circular No. 39-97. He
alleged that he was not furnished a copy of the circular and managed to secure a copy
only after he instructed his legal researcher to get one from the Executive Judge of the
Regional Trial Court of Tacloban City. Accordingly, on April 14, 1997, he issued an order
lifting and setting aside the hold departure order dated October 23, 1998. As regards
the issue of denial of due process, respondent judge averred that complainant and her
counsel were duly notified of the scheduled hearing but neither appeared on said date.
The Court Administrator after finding that respondent judge erred in issuing the
assailed "hold departure order," recommended that he be severely reprimanded with a
stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future shall be dealt
with more severely.
The recommendation of the Court Administrator is well-taken.
Circular No. 39-97 limits the authority to issue hold-departure orders to criminal cases
within the jurisdiction of second level courts. Paragraph No. 1 of the said circular
specifically provides that "hold-departure orders shall be issued only in criminal cases
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the regional trial courts." Clearly then, criminal cases
within the exclusive jurisdiction of first level courts do not fall within the ambit of the
circular, and it was an error on the part of respondent judge to have issued one in the
instant case.
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/52212
1/2