9/11/23, 10:55 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 387

532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cabatingan, Sr. vs. Arcueno
*

A.M. No. MTJ-00-1323. August 22, 2002.

Judge PEDRO B. CABATINGAN, SR. (Ret.), complainant, vs.

Judge CELSO A. ARCUENO, MCTC, Cataingan, Masbate,
respondent.

Courts; Judges; To be able to render substantial justice and maintain

public confidence in the legal system, judges should be embodiments of

_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.

533

VOL. 387, AUGUST 22, 2002 533

Cabatingan, Sr. vs. Arcueno

competence, integrity and independence.—To be able to render substantial

justice and maintain public confidence in the legal system, judges should be
embodiments of competence, integrity and independence. Hence, they are
expected to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with statutes and
procedural rules and to apply them properly in all good faith. They are
likewise expected to demonstrate mastery of the principles of law, keep
abreast of prevailing jurisprudence, and discharge their duties in accordance
therewith. Further, judges should administer their office with due regard to
the integrity of the system of law itself, remembering that they are not
depositories of arbitrary power, but are judges under the sanction of law.It
must be emphasized that this Court has formulated and promulgated rules of
procedure to ensure the speedy and efficient administration of justice.
Wanton failure to abide by these rules undermines the wisdom behind them
and diminishes respect for the rule of law.
Same; Same; Bail; A judge who conducted the preliminary
investigation, who has jurisdiction over the place where the accused was
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a84c0ebd3b5c315cb000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/11
9/11/23, 10:55 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 387

arrested, has authority to grant bail and to order the release of the accused
even if the records of the case had been transmitted for review to the Office
of the Provincial Prosecutor.—In the case at bar, Benito Bucado was
arrested in the Municipality of Cataingan after a preliminary investigation
conducted by respondent judge. The latter therefore had the authority to
grant bail and to order the release of the accused. Even if the records of the
case had been transmitted for review to the Office of the Provincial
Prosecutor, respondent could have approved the bail bond posted by the
accused. Such action cannot be validly attacked on jurisdictional grounds.
Same; Same; Same; Gross Ignorance of the Law; When the law is so
elementary, not to be aware of it constitutes gross ignorance thereof.—
Considering that one of his responsibilities as a judge was to conduct
preliminary investigations, it was therefore his duty to keep abreast of the
laws, rulings and jurisprudence on this matter. Because he had apparently
lagged behind, he fell short of his vow to live up to the injunction of the
Code of Judicial Conduct to “maintain professional competence.” When the
law is so elementary, as in this case, not to be aware of it constitutes gross
ignorance thereof. Indeed, everyone is presumed to know the law. Ignorance
of the law, which everyone is bound to know, excuses no one—certainly not
a judge.
Same; Same; Same; Administrative Complaints; A complaint for
misconduct and similar charges against a judicial or other public officer or
employee cannot just be withdrawn at any time—the people should not be
made to depend upon the whims and caprices of complainants who are, in a
real sense, only witnesses therein.—On July 7, 2000, a Joint Motion to

534

534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cabatingan, Sr. vs. Arcueno

Dismiss was executed by complainant and respondent. It should be

remembered that a complaint for misconduct and similar charges against a
judicial or other public officer or employee cannot just be withdrawn at any
time. A simple expediency such as a complainant’s sudden claim of change
of mindfollowed by a withdrawal of the complaint would not result in the
automatic dismissal of the case. Further, the faith and confidence of the
people in their government and its agencies and instrumentalities need to be
maintained. The people should not be made to depend upon the whims and
caprices of complainants who are, in a real sense, only witnesses therein. To
rule otherwise would subvert the fair and prompt administration of justice as
well as undermine the discipline of court personnel.
Same; Same; Same; To be held liable for gross ignorance of the law,
the judge must be shown to have committed an error that was “gross or
patent, deliberate or malicious,” as well as a judge who—shown to have
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a84c0ebd3b5c315cb000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 2/11
9/11/23, 10:55 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 387

been motivated by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty or corruption—ignored,

contradicted or failed to apply settled law and jurisprudence.—In any case,
it bears noting that the administrative liability for ignorance of the law does
not necessarily arise from the mere fact that a judge issued an order that is
adjudged to be erroneous. Judges may not be held administratively
accountable for every erroneous order; it is only when they act fraudulently
or with gross ignorance that administrative sanctions are called for. To be
held liable for gross ignorance of the law, the judge must be shown to have
committed an error that was “gross or patent, deliberate or malicious.” Also
administratively liable therefor is a judge who—shown to have been
motivated by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty or corruption—ignored,
contradicted or failed to apply settled law and jurisprudence.

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court. Gross

Ignorance of the Law.

The facts are stated in the Opinion of the Court.

PANGANIBAN, J.:

Ignorance of the law excuses no one—certainly not a judge—from

compliance therewith. This is particularly true in cases where the
law is so elementary that to be unaware of it or to ignore it
constitutes gross ignorance, which is administratively sanctionable.

535

VOL. 387, AUGUST 22, 2002 535

Cabatingan, Sr. vs. Arcueno

Statement of the Case

1

A sworn Administrative Complaint filed by Judge Pedro B.

Cabatingan, Sr. (ret.) charges Judge Celso A. Arcueno of the
Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Cataingan, Masbate, with gross
ignorance of the law.

The Facts

The facts are summarized 2by the Office of the Court Administrator
(OCA) in its Memorandum dated September 25, 2001, as follows:
3
“Complainant, who is the counsel for the accused [Benito Bucado ] x x x,
narrates that a complaint for Illegal Fishing was filed in respondent’s court
for preliminary investigation and was docketed as Criminal Case No. 4877-
PVC. Finding a prima facie case against all the accused, respondent issued a
warrant of arrest fixing the bail bond at P50,000 for each of them. Benito

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a84c0ebd3b5c315cb000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 3/11
9/11/23, 10:55 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 387

Bucado, one of the accused, posted a property bond. Respondent, however,

in violation of Section 17, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, allegedly refused
to accept the bail bond upon the contention that he no longer ha[d]
jurisdiction over the case inasmuch as the records were already forwarded to
the Office of the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor for review.
“When required to comment, respondent Judge Celso A. Arcueno, denied
the charges. He narrates that the aforementioned criminal case was filed in
his court for preliminary investigation. Finding the existence of probable
cause, he issued a warrant of arrest with the recommended bail of
P50,000.00 for each of the accused. Upon the arrest of the accused, he
issued an Order dated September 15, 1998 requiring them to submit their
counter-affidavits and that of their witnesses within ten (10) days from
receipt thereof. However, the accused failed to submit their counter-
affidavits. They also failed to post bail for their temporary liberty.

_______________

1 Rollo, p. 2.
2 The Memorandum was signed by Deputy Court Administrator Jose P. Perez.
3 Also spelled “Bocado” in the records of the 6th Municipal Circuit Trial Court of
Cataingan-Pio V. Corpus, Fifth Judicial Region of Cataingan, Masbate.

536

536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cabatingan, Sr. vs. Arcueno

“After the lapse of the ten (10) day period as provided in Section 3 (f) of
Rule 112, Rules of [C]ourt, respondent, finding the existence of probable
cause against the accused, issued a resolution dated 13 October 1998
forwarding the entire records of the case to the RTC, Branch 49, Cataingan,
Masbate thru the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor, for review. On 15 October
1998, the Office of the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor received the records
of the subject criminal case. On 4 November 1998, while the case was being
reviewed by the Office of the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor, complainant
presented the bail bond of the accused Benito y Ferrer for respondent’s
approval.
“Respondent claims that he initially refused to approve the property bond
because he believed that he had already lost jurisdiction over the case. Also,
the tax declaration of the property being put up as a bond was not attached
to the bail bond form to show proof of ownership thereof by the bondsman.
However, on 20 November 1998, he approved said bail bond and
consequently ordered the release of accused Bucado.
“On 18 September 2000, the Third Division of this Court resolved to
DOCKET the complaint as an administrative matter and to require the
parties to MANIFEST to the Court within twenty (20) days from notice,
whether they [were] submitting the case on the basis of the
pleadings/records already filed and submitted.
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a84c0ebd3b5c315cb000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 4/11
9/11/23, 10:55 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 387

“In compliance with the aforementioned resolution, respondent Judge

filed a Manifestation with Motion to Dismiss dated 30 October 2000. On 17
January 2001, the Court resolved to NOTE the respondent’s Manifestation
with Motion to Dismiss and to consider as WAIVED the filing of
Manifestation by complainant for his failure to submit the same
4 within the
period specified under the Resolution of 18 September 2000.”
5

In his Manifestation with Motion to Dismiss, respondent justified

his refusal to approve the bail bond. His reason for his refusal was
that, in notarizing the bail bond document, complainant grossly
violated Section 10 of Rule 114 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal
Procedure. In so doing, he arrogated unto himself the power and
authority pertaining to a judge. Respondent reiterated his previous
Manifestation, dated July 12, 2000, praying for the dismissal of the
case on the ground that the parties had mutually and amicably
settled the case. He submitted, as proof of the settlement, the Joint
Motion to Dismiss signed by both parties.

_______________

4 Rollo, pp. 43-44.

5 Id., pp. 29-30.

537

VOL. 387, AUGUST 22, 2002 537

Cabatingan, Sr. vs. Arcueno

The Court Administrator’s Recommendation

After a perusal of the records of the case, Deputy Court

Administrator Jose P. Perez, in his Report dated September 25, 2001,
explained that the refusal of respondent judge to approve the bail
bond posted by the accused showed the latter’s ignorance of the
rules of procedure. Thus, the former submitted the following
recommendations:

“1. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss be DENIED for lack of

merit; and
“2. Respondent Judge Celso A. Arcueno be found guilty of
gross ignorance of the law and be ordered to pay a FINE of
Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) with a STERN
WARNING that a repetition of the 6 same or [a] similar act

shall be dealt with more severely.”

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a84c0ebd3b5c315cb000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 5/11
9/11/23, 10:55 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 387

This Court’s Ruling

We agree with the OCA’s findings and recommendation, but with

some modifications as to the penalty.

Administrative Liability

Complainant asserts that respondent judge is guilty of gross

ignorance of the law for refusing to approve the bail bond of the
accused in violation of Section 17 of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court.
Complainant also claims that this7 lapse unduly deprived the accused
of the constitutional right to bail. 8

On the other hand, in his Comment dated June 1, 1999,

respondent explains that he refused to approve the bail bond,
because he had lost jurisdiction over the case after forwarding for
review the records thereof to the Office of the Assistant Provincial
Prosecutor. He asserts that “once jurisdiction is9 lost, no further
action can be entertained in connection therewith.” He adds that the
tax decla-

_______________

6 Id., p. 46.
7 Complaint, p. 1; ibid.
8 Comment, p. 1; id., p. 9.
9 Id., p. 2; id., p. 10.

538

538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cabatingan, Sr. vs. Arcueno

ration for the property put up as a bond was not attached to the 10 bail
bond form to show proof of the bondsman’s ownership or title. 11

However, in his Manifestation with Motion to Dismiss, dated

October 30, 2000, respondent judge proffered a different justification
for his refusal to approve the bail bond. He theorized that
complainant, as counsel for the accused Benito Bucado in Criminal
Case No. 4877-PVC and as notary public, had grossly and seriously
violated Section 10 of Rule 114 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal
Procedure, as amended. Complainant supposedly violated this
provision by arrogating unto himself the power and authority that
pertained to a judge.
We are not persuaded. As correctly pointed out by the OCA, the
argument of respondent judge in his Manifestation with Motion to
Dismiss is clearly an afterthought; and, hence, deserves no credence.

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a84c0ebd3b5c315cb000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 6/11
9/11/23, 10:55 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 387

To be able to render substantial justice and maintain public

confidence in the legal system, judges should
12 be embodiments of
competence, integrity and independence. Hence, they are expected
to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with statutes 13 and
procedural rules and to apply them properly in all good faith. They
are likewise expected to demonstrate mastery14 of the principles of
law, keep abreast of prevailing15 jurisprudence, and discharge their
duties in accordance therewith.
Further, judges should administer their office with due regard to
the integrity of the system of law itself, remembering that they are
not depositories
16 of arbitrary power, but are judges under the sanction
of law. It must be emphasized that this Court has formulated and
promulgated rules of procedure to ensure the speedy and efficient
administration of justice. Wanton failure to abide by these

_______________

10 Ibid.
11 Rollo, pp. 29-30.
12 Rule 1.01, Canon 1, Code of Judicial Conduct.
13 Cortes v. Catral, 279 SCRA 1, September 10, 1997.
14 Carpio v. De Guzman, 262 SCRA 615, October 2, 1996.
15 Borromeo v. Mariano, 41 Phil. 322, January 3, 1921, per Malcolm, J.
16 Conducto v. Monzon, 291 SCRA 619, July 2, 1998

539

VOL. 387, AUGUST 22, 2002 539

Cabatingan, Sr. vs. Arcueno

rules undermines 17 the wisdom behind them and diminishes respect

for the rule of law.
Before we can decide whether respondent judge erred in refusing
to grant bail, we deem it necessary to determine first whether18 he had

jurisdiction to grant it under the circumstances of this case. Bail is

defined as the
19 “security given for the release of a person in custody

of the law.” Section 17, paragraph (c) of Rule 114 of the Revised
Rules of Court, provides:

“SEC. 17. Bail, where filed.—(c) Any person in custody who is not yet
charged in court may apply for bail with any court in the province, city or
municipality where he is held.”

In the case at bar, Benito Bucado was arrested in the Municipality of

Cataingan after a preliminary investigation conducted by respondent
judge. The latter therefore 20had the authority to grant bail and to order
the release of the accused. Even if the records of the case had been
transmitted for review to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor,

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a84c0ebd3b5c315cb000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 7/11
9/11/23, 10:55 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 387

respondent could have approved the bail bond posted by the

accused. 21Such action cannot be validly attacked on jurisdictional
grounds.
Considering that one of his responsibilities as a judge was to
conduct preliminary investigations, it was therefore his duty to keep
abreast of the laws, rulings and jurisprudence
22 on this matter.
Because he had apparently lagged behind, he fell short of his vow
to live up to the injunction of the23 Code of Judicial Conduct to
“maintain professional competence.”

_______________

17 Hilario v. Ocampo, A.M. MTJ-00-1305, December 3, 2001, 371 SCRA 260.

18 Obosa v. Court of Appeals, 266 SCRA 281, January 16, 1997.
19 §1, Rule 114, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
20 Cruz v. Yaneza, 304 SCRA 285, March 9, 1999.
21 Adapon v. Domagtoy, 265 SCRA 824, December 27, 1996.
22 Espiritu v. Jovellanos, 280 SCRA 579, October 16, 1997.
23 Canon 3, Code of Judicial Conduct; Aurillo, Jr. v. Francisco, 235 SCRA 283,
August 12, 1994.

540

540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cabatingan, Sr. vs. Arcueno

When the law is so elementary, as in 24 this case, not to be aware of it

constitutes gross25ignorance thereof. Indeed, everyone is presumed

to know the law. Ignorance of the law, which 26 everyone is bound to

know, excuses no one—certainly not a judge. 27

On July 7, 2000, a Joint Motion to Dismiss was executed by

complainant and respondent. It should be remembered that a
complaint for misconduct and similar charges against a judicial or
other public officer or employee cannot just be withdrawn at any
time. A simple expediency
28 such as a complainant’s sudden claim of
change of mind followed by a withdrawal of 29 the complaint would
not result in the automatic dismissal of the case.
Further, the faith and confidence of the people in their
government and its agencies and instrumentalities need to be
maintained. The people should not be made to depend upon the
whims and caprices 30 of complainants who are, in a real sense, only

witnesses therein. To rule otherwise would subvert the fair and

prompt administration 31 of justice as well as undermine the discipline
of court personnel.
In any case, it bears noting that the administrative liability for
ignorance of the law does not necessarily arise from the mere fact 32

that a judge issued an order that is adjudged to be erroneous.

Judges may not be held administratively accountable for every
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a84c0ebd3b5c315cb000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 8/11
9/11/23, 10:55 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 387

_______________

24 Agcaoili v. Ramos, 229 SCRA 705, February 7, 1994; citing Santos v. Isidro,
200 SCRA 597, August 16, 1991.
25 Cortes v. Agcaoili, 294 SCRA 423, August 20, 1998.
26 Ualat v. Ramos, 265 SCRA 345, December 6, 1996.
27 Rollo, p. 23.
28 Jacob v. Tambo, A.M. P-00-1411, November 16, 2001, 369 SCRA 148.
29 Dadap-Malinao v. Mijares, A.M. No. RTJ-99-1475, December 12, 2001, 372
SCRA 128.
30 Dadap-Malinao v. Mijares, A.M. No. RTJ-99-1475, December 12, 2001, 372
SCRA 128; Mosquera v. Legaspi, 335 SCRA 326, July 10, 2000; Florendo v. Enrile,
239 SCRA 22, December 7, 1994.
31 Caseñares v. Almeida, Jr., 324 SCRA 388, February 2, 2000.
32 Guerrero v. Villamor, 296 SCRA 88, September 25, 1998.

541

VOL. 387, AUGUST 22, 2002 541

Cabatingan, Sr. vs. Arcueno

erroneous order; it is only when they act fraudulently 33 or with gross

ignorance that administrative sanctions are called for.
To be held liable for gross ignorance of the law, the judge must
be shown to have committed 34 an error that was “gross or patent,
deliberate or malicious.” Also administratively liable therefor is a
judge who—shown to have been motivated by bad faith, fraud,
dishonesty or corruption—ignored,
35 contradicted or failed to apply
settled law and jurisprudence.
It must be pointed out that this is not the first infraction
36 of Judge
Arcueno. Previously, in Gimeno v. Arcueno, Sr., he was charged
with and found guilty of ignorance of the law when, without any
hearing, he granted bail to the accused who had been charged with 37a
capital offense in a criminal case for robbery with homicide.
Respondent was consequently fined in the amount of P5,000 and
warned that a repetition of the same or a similar act in the future
would be severely dealt with.
Indeed, it seems that respondent judge has remained undeterred
in disregarding the law which he has 38pledged to uphold and the
Code which he has promised to live by. He appears 39 to be unfazed
by the previous penalty and warnings he received.40 Because this is
his second infraction, it warrants a heavier penalty.
WHEREFORE, Judge Celso A. Arcueno is hereby found
GUILTY of gross ignorance of the law and is FINED in the amount
of fifteen thousand pesos (P15,000), payable within five days from
notice. He is further warned that a repetition of this or similar
offenses will be dealt with even more severely.

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a84c0ebd3b5c315cb000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 9/11
9/11/23, 10:55 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 387

_______________

33 Re: Suspension of Clerk of Court Rogelio R. Joboco, RTC, Br. 16, Naval,
Biliran, 294 SCRA 119, August 12, 1998.
34 Zarate v. Balderian, 329 SCRA 558, April 3, 2000, citing In Re: Joaquin T.
Borromeo, 241 SCRA 405, February 21, 1995.
35 Rallos v. Gako, Jr., 344 SCRA 178, October 24, 2000.
36 250 SCRA 376, November 29, 1995.
37 Gimeno v. Arcueno, Sr., 250 SCRA 376, November 29, 1995.
38 Marcos-Manotoc v. Agcaoili, 330 SCRA 268, April 12, 2000.
39 Ibid.
40 Cortes v. Agcaoili, 294 SCRA 423, August 20, 1998.

542

542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Basa Air Base Savings & Loan Association, Inc. vs. Pimentel, Jr.

SO ORDERED.

Puno (Chairman) and Carpio, JJ., concur.

Sandoval-Gutierrez, J., On leave.

Respondent meted a P15,000 fine for gross ignorance of the law.

Notes.—The Rules, even in an administrative case, demand that,

if the respondent judge should be disciplined for grave misconduct
or any graver offense, the evidence against him should be competent
and should be derived from direct knowledge. (Dionisio vs. Escaño,
302 SCRA 411 [1999])
In the absence of fraud, dishonesty or corruption, the acts of a
judge in his official capacity are not subject to disciplinary action,
even though such acts are erroneous. (Uy vs. Medina, 342 SCRA
393 [2000])
While judges should not be disciplined for inefficiency on
account merely of occasional mistakes or errors of judgment, it is
highly imperative that they should be conversant with fundamental
and basic legal principles in order to merit the confidence of the
citizenry. (Cacayoren vs. Suller, 344 SCRA 159 [2000])

——o0o——

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a84c0ebd3b5c315cb000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 10/11
9/11/23, 10:55 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 387

© Copyright 2023 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000018a84c0ebd3b5c315cb000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 11/11