Genil v. Rivera

4/4/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 479
VOL. 479, JANUARY 23, 2006 363

Genil vs. Rivera
*
A.M. No. MTJ061619. January 23, 2006.
(Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 041556MTJ.)
JESUSA ODONEL GENIL, complainant, vs. JUDGE

ROGACIANO Y. RIVERA, Municipal Trial Court, Sta.
Catalina, Negros Oriental, respondent.
Criminal Procedure; Preliminary Investigation; Right of

Confrontation; Section 3(e) of Rule 112 provides that parties in a
preliminary investigation have no right to examine or cross
examine.—On top of the abovequoted provision of Sec. 3(e) of
Rule 112 that the parties in a preliminary investigation have no
right to examine or crossexamine, the Rule on Examination of a
Child Witness provides that the court shall exercise control over
the questioning of children so as to facilitate the ascertainment of
the truth and ensure that questions are stated in a form
appropriate to their developmental level and protect them from
harassment or undue embarrassment.
Same; Same; Evidence; Witnesses; Rules on Examination of a
Child Witness; The Rule on Examination of a Child Witness
provides that when a child witness testifies, the court may, motu
proprio, order the exclusion from the courtroom of all persons who
do not have direct
_______________
* EN BANC.
364
364 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Genil vs. Rivera
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001628c8e7576732d3b35003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/13
interest in the case.—The same Rule on Examination of a Child

Witness provides that when a child testifies, the court may, motu
proprio, order the exclusion from the courtroom of all persons who
do not have a direct interest in the case. In issuing such order, the
court is to consider, inter alia, the developmental level of the
child, the nature of the crime, and the nature of his testimony
regarding the crime. It may also exclude the public from the
courtroom if the evidence to be produced is of such character as to
be offensive to decency or public morals.
Same; Same; Right of Confrontation; The accused in a
preliminary investigation has no right to crossexamine the
witness which the complainant may present.—As the abovequoted
provisions of the Rules direct, after a preliminary investigation is
conducted, the investigating judge must perform his ministerial
duty to transmit within ten days after the conclusion thereof the
resolution of the case together with the entire records to the
provincial prosecutor. If on the other hand he determines, after
examining the complaint and other documents offered in support
thereof, that there is no ground to continue with the inquiry, he
should dismiss the complaint and transmit the order of dismissal
together with the records of the case to the provincial prosecutor
within ten days from the filing of the complaint. And, examination
or crossexamination by the parties is proscribed. Yet respondent
not only allowed SPO4 Cadungog who acted as prosecutor to
crossexamine the accused Roderick Sales; he also allowed the
defense counsel to propound questions to Nancy and her mother.
It is a fundamental principle that the accused in a preliminary
investigation has no right to crossexamine the witnesses which the
complainant may present. Section 3, Rule 112 of the Rules of
Court expressly provides that the respondent shall only have the
right to submit a counteraffidavit, to examine all other evidence
submitted by the complainant and, where the fiscal sets a hearing
to propound clarificatory questions to the parties or their
witnesses, to be afforded an opportunity to be present but without
the right to examine or crossexamine.
Courts; Judges; Gross Ignorance of the Law; Judges owe it to
the public to be knowledgeable, hence, they are expected to have
more than just a modicum of acquaintance with the statutes and
procedural rules.—Judges owe it to the public to be
knowledgeable, hence, they are expected to have more than just a
modicum of acquaintance
365
VOL. 479, JANUARY 23, 2006 365
Genil vs. Rivera
with the statutes and procedural rules. When the law is so

elementary, not to know it or to act as if one does not know it
constitutes gross ignorance of the law, the mainspring of injustice.
And judges must be faithful to the laws and maintain professional
competence. x x x Indeed, competence is a mark of a good judge.
When a judge displays an utter lack of familiarity with the rules,
he erodes the public’s confidence in the competence of our courts.
Such is gross ignorance of the law. Having accepted the exalted
position of a judge, he owes the public and the court the duty to be
proficient in the law. Unfamiliarity with the Rules of Court is a
sign of incompetence. Basic rules must be at the palm of his
hands. A judge must be acquainted with legal norms and precepts
as well as with procedural rules. x x x x x x Verily, failure to
follow basic legal commands embodied in the law and the
Rules constitutes gross ignorance of the law, from which
no one is excused, and surely not a judge.
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court. Gross

Ignorance of the Law and Procedure.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
CARPIOMORALES, J.:
Judge Rogaciano Y. Rivera (respondent) of the Municipal

Trial Court (MTC) of Sta. Catalina,
1
Negros Oriental is the
subject of two lettercomplaints filed on September 11,
2003 before the Office of the Chief Justice by Jesusa
Odonel Genil (complainant), barangay captain of Amio,
Sta. Catalina, Negros Oriental.
The events which spawned the filing of the complaint
against respondent are related by complainant as follows:
On May 30, 2003, one of complainant’s constituents,
Nancy Silfaban (Nancy), filed before the MTC of Sta.
Catalina, Negros Oriental two criminal complaints against
Roderick Sales, one for rape and the other for forcible
abduction with rape, docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 3791
and 3792, respec
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 24.
366

Genil vs. Rivera
tively. On even date, Nancy also filed a criminal complaint

against Janice Sales for violation of Republic Act 7610,
otherwise known as the Special Protection of Children
Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act,
docketed as Criminal Case No. 3793.
Respondent conducted a preliminary investigation of
Criminal Case Nos. 3791 and 3792 two and a half months
later or on August 13, 2003 after the accused was ordered
to submit his counteraffidavit, which preliminary
investigation was made in open court.
During the abovesaid preliminary investigation, Nancy,
a minor, was called to the witness stand and, in the course
of her testimony subjected to humiliation as all those
present, including respondent, the counsel for the defense
Atty. Arturo Erames, and SPO4 Herminigildo Ortiz
Cadungog (SPO4 Cadungog) of the Philippine National 2
Police (PNP) who acted as prosecutor, were laughing.
Respecting Criminal Case No. 33793 against Janice
Sales, respondent had yet to act on it.
Apprehensive that
4
respondent would dismiss the cases
which Nancy filed, complainant requested this Court for a
change of venue.
The lettercomplaints were eventually referred for
investigation to Judge Orlando C. Velasco of Branch 63 of
the Regional Trial Court of Bayawan City who directed
respondent to file his Comment thereon and to require the
public prosecutor and the counsel of Roderick Sales to also
submit their respective comments.
Complying 5 with Judge Velasco’s directive, respondent,
by Comment dated October 9, 2003, explained that
preliminary investigation on the complaints filed by Nancy
were not im
_______________
2 Id., at p. 2.
3 Id., at p. 3.
4 Ibid.
5 Id., at pp. 2325.
367
VOL. 479, JANUARY 23, 2006 367

Genil vs. Rivera
mediately conducted as the evidence was “weak” and

“unbelievable,” it being “manifestly inconsistent with, and
6
6
repugnant to, the natural course of things.”
Respecting the conduct of preliminary investigation in
open court on August 13, 2003, respondent claimed that not
only did Nancy not request otherwise; she, albeit a minor,
“looks energetic, psychologically mature and somewhat
aggressive who answers questions quickly,” and there was
nothing in her affidavit or testimony which warranted the
exclusion of the public from the proceedings. And
respondent disclaimed the occurrence of any laughing
incident during the preliminary investigation,7 he adding
that “all were eager to observe the proceedings.”
On complainant’s request for change of venue,
respondent suggested that the cases be forwarded to the
Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Negros Oriental,
Dumaguete City, and unless 8
otherwise directed, he would
proceed to resolve the
9
cases.
In his Comment, SPO4 Cadungog claimed that he is not
learned in the law which could explain complainant’s
dissatisfaction with his performance when he acted as
prosecutor during the preliminary investigation of the
complaints which Nancy filed. And he too denied that 10
there
was laughing during the preliminary investigation. 11
Defense counsel Atty. Erames, by his Comment, also
disclaimed that there was laughing during the preliminary
investigation. He advanced though that the relatives of the
accused in the first two criminal cases “may have been
pleased” with Nancy’s testimonies which tended to support
_______________
6 Id., at p. 23.
7 Id., at p. 24.
8 Ibid.
9 Id., at pp. 3334.
10 Id., at p. 33.
11 Id., at pp. 3536.
368

Genil vs. Rivera
the defense claim that the accused and Nancy were

sweethearts. On complainant’s request for transfer 12
of
venue of the criminal cases, he interposed
13
no objection.
In his Investigation Report dated October 16, 2003,
Judge Velasco noted that Nancy was subjected to
“unhampered ridicule, embarrassment and humiliation”
during the preliminary investigation, and respondent even

“ordered 14her to turn clockwise to the delight of every one
present.”
Regarding the status of Criminal Case Nos. 3791 and
3792, Judge Velasco reported that they had remained
unresolved by respondent, 15
while Criminal Case No. 3793
had yet to be16acted upon.
By letter dated August 13, 17
2004, respondent, in
compliance with two telegrams dated January 23, 2004
and July 19, 2004 of the Office of the Court Administrator
(OCA) directing him to report the status of the cases,
informed that they had been resolved and were ready for
transmittal to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of
Negros Oriental,
18
Dumaguete City for further disposition.
By Report of February 14, 2005, the OCA recommends
that the administrative case against respondent be
docketed as a regular administrative matter and that he be
fined in the amount of P21,000 for gross ignorance of the
law, with warning that a repetition of the same or similar
act would be dealt with more severely, in light of the
following observations:
“x x x [Respondent] took no action on Criminal Case No. 3793

from the date of its filing on 30 May 2003 until 09 October 2003
and offered no explanation for its delay before him. He conducted
the
_______________
12 Id., at p. 36.
13 Id., at pp. 2627.
14 Id., at p. 26.
15 Ibid.
16 Id., at p. 42.
17 Id., at pp. 4344.
18 Id., at pp. 8183.
369
VOL. 479, JANUARY 23, 2006 369

Genil vs. Rivera
preliminary investigation in Criminal Case Nos. 3791 and 3792

only on 13 August 2003, but he has not yet submitted his
resolutions thereon to the Provincial Prosecutor. Assuming he had
already resolved the cases on 13 August 2004, still there was
undue delay. x x x
Respondent judge displayed blatant insensitivity to the child
victim. He allowed the defense counsel to crossexamine the child
witness and her mother which caused them extreme humiliation

and embarrassment. x x x Parties cannot be subjected to direct
examination or crossexamination. Questions or issues that may
arise during the investigation should be addressed to the
investigating judge who should propound the same to the party
concerned. Noteworthy is that the Rule on Examination of a Child
Witness (A.M. No. 00407SC 21 November 2000) does not permit
a defense counsel to even approach a child who is testifying if it
appears that the child is fearful of or intimidated by the counsel. x
x x Neither does the Rule require a manifestation from the child or
her mother to exclude the public from the hearing. The court may
motu proprio exclude the public from the courtroom to protect the
right to privacy of the child; if requiring the child to testify in
open court would cause psychological harm to him; if it would
hinder the ascertainment of truth or result in his inability to
effectively communicate due to embarrassment, fear or timidity;
and if the evidence to be produced is of such character as to be
19
offensive to decency or public morals.” (Emphasis and italics
supplied)
20
By Resolution of March 16, 2005, this Court noted the
February 14, 2005 OCA Report and required the parties to
manifest within 20 days whether they were submitting the
case on the basis of the pleadings/records already filed and
submitted. 21
Respondent has manifested, by Compliance submitted
on June 3, 2005, that he is submitting the case for
resolution. Appended to22
the Compliance was the December
28, 2004 Resolution of Assistant Prosecutor Gloria
Cynthia P. Icao of
_______________
19 Id., at pp. 8283.

20 Id., at p. 84.
21 Id., at p. 88.
22 Id., at pp. 8687.
370

Genil vs. Rivera
the Provincial Prosecution Office of Negros Oriental,

bearing the approval of the Provincial Prosecutor in I.S.
Case No. 2004544 which affirmed and adopted the
Resolution of the MTC of Sta. Catalina, Negros Oriental
dismissing Criminal Case No. 3793 (People v. Janice Sales)
for lack of merit.

23
This Court noted respondent’s Compliance
by Resolution of July 6, 2005, as it did note complainant’s
failure to comply
24
with the March 16, 2005 Resolution, by
Resolution of August 10, 2005.
Section 3(b), Rule 112 of the Rules on Criminal
Procedure provides that within ten (10) days after the filing
of a criminal complaint, the investigating officer shall
either dismiss it if he finds no ground to continue with the
investigation, or issue a subpoena to the respondent to
which a copy of the complaint and supporting affidavits
and documents should be attached.
Section 3(e) and (f) of the same Rule provide:
(e) The investigating officer may set a hearing if there are

facts and issues to be clarified from a party or a witness.
The parties can be present at the hearing but without the
right to examine or crossexamine. They may, however,
submit to the investigating officer questions which may be
asked to the party or witness concerned.
The hearing shall be held within ten (10) days from submission of
the counteraffidavits and other documents or from the expiration
of the period for their submission. It shall be terminated within
five (5) days.
(f) Within ten (10) days after the investigation, the

investigating officer shall determine whether or not there
is sufficient ground to hold the respondent for trial.
(Emphasis and italics Supplied)
Moreover, Section 5 of still the same Rule provides:
_______________
23 Id., at p. 96.
24 Id., at p. 97.
371
VOL. 479, JANUARY 23, 2006 371

Genil vs. Rivera
SEC. 5. Resolution of investigating judge and its review.—Within

ten (10) days after the preliminary investigation, the
investigating judge shall transmit the resolution of the case to
the provincial or city prosecutor, or to the Ombudsman or his
deputy in cases of offenses cognizable by the Sandiganbayan in
the exercise of its original jurisdiction, for appropriate action. The
resolution shall state the findings of facts and the law supporting
his action, together with the record of the case which shall
include: (a) the warrant, if the arrest is by virtue of a warrant; (b)
the affidavits, counteraffidavits and other supporting evidence of
the parties; (c) the undertaking or bail of the accused and the
order for his release; (d) the transcripts of the proceedings during
the preliminary investigation; and (e) the order of cancellation of
his bail bond, if the resolution is for the dismissal of the
complaint.
x x x (Emphasis and italics supplied)
On top of the abovequoted provision of Sec. 3(e) of Rule

112 that the parties in a preliminary investigation have no
right to examine or crossexamine, 25
the Rule on
Examination of a Child Witness provides that the court
shall exercise control over the questioning of children so as
to facilitate the ascertainment of the truth and ensure that
questions are stated in a form appropriate to their
developmental level and 26
protect them from harassment or
undue embarrassment.
The same Rule on Examination of a Child Witness
provides that when a child testifies, the court may, motu
proprio, order the exclusion from the courtroom of all
persons who do not have a direct interest in the case. In
issuing such order, the court is to consider, inter alia, the
developmental level of the child, the nature of the crime,
and the nature of his testimony regarding the crime. It may
also exclude the public from the courtroom if the evidence
to be produced is of such 27
character as to be offensive to
decency or public morals.
_______________
25 A.M. No. 00407SC.

26 Rule on Examination of a Child Witness, sec. 19.
27 Rule on Examination of a Child Witness, sec. 23.
372

Genil vs. Rivera
As reflected earlier, while the criminal complaints of Nancy

were filed on May 30, 2003 before the MTC, it was only on
August 13, 2003 or after two and a half months that
respondent conducted the preliminary investigation for
Criminal Case Nos. 3791 and 3792. And, per the
Investigation Report of Judge Velasco, as of October 16,
2003 or more than four months after Criminal Case No.
3793 was filed, no action had yet been taken thereon by

respondent.
By respondent’s admission, as of August 13, 2004 or
more than a year after the criminal complaints were filed
and exactly a year after the preliminary investigation for
Criminal Case Nos. 3791 and 3792 was conducted, his
resolutions thereon had yet to be transmitted to the Office
of the Provincial Prosecutor of Negros Oriental, Dumaguete
City.
As the abovequoted provisions of the Rules direct, after
a preliminary investigation is conducted, the investigating
judge must perform his ministerial duty to transmit within
ten days after the conclusion thereof the resolution of the
case together
28
with the entire records to the provincial
prosecutor. If on the other hand he determines, after
examining the complaint and other documents offered in
support thereof, that there is no ground to continue with
the inquiry, he should dismiss the complaint and transmit
the order of dismissal together with the records of the case
to the provincial prosecutor within ten days from the filing
of the complaint. And, examination or crossexamination by
the parties is proscribed. Yet respondent not only allowed
SPO4 Cadungog who acted as prosecutor to crossexamine
the accused Roderick Sales; he also allowed the defense
counsel to propound questions to Nancy and her mother.
“It is a fundamental principle that the accused in a preliminary

investigation has no right to crossexamine the witnesses which the
_______________
28 Domingo v. Reyes, 368 Phil. 12, 18; 308 SCRA 537, 540 (1999) (citation
omitted), Cantela v. Almoradie, A.M. No. MTJ93749, February 7, 1994, 229
SCRA 712, 716.
373
VOL. 479, JANUARY 23, 2006 373

Genil vs. Rivera
complainant may present. Section 3, Rule 112 of the Rules of

Court expressly provides that the respondent shall only have the
right to submit a counteraffidavit, to examine all other evidence
submitted by the complainant and, where the fiscal sets a hearing
to propound clarificatory questions to the parties or their
witnesses, to be afforded an opportunity to be present but without
29
the right to examine or crossexamine.” (Italics supplied)
Indubitably then, respondent was remiss in the

performance of his duties when he not only allowed the
crossexamination of the parties during the preliminary
investigation but also failed to resolve the criminal
complaints within the period mandated by law.
Judges owe it to the public to be knowledgeable, hence,
they are expected to have more than just a modicum of 30
acquaintance with the statutes and procedural rules.
When the law is so elementary, not to know it or to act as if
one 31does not know it constitutes32
gross ignorance of the
law, the mainspring of injustice.
And judges must be faithful
33
to the laws and maintain
professional competence.
“x x x Indeed, competence is a mark of a good judge. When a judge

displays an utter lack of familiarity with the rules, he erodes the
public’s confidence in the competence of our courts. Such is gross
ignorance of the law. Having accepted the exalted position of a
judge,
_______________
29 Paderanga v. Drilon, G.R. No. 96080, April 19, 1991, 196 SCRA 86, 93.
30 Domondon v. Lopez, 432 Phil. 953, 964; 383 SCRA 376, 388 (2002) (citation
omitted).
31 Mina v. Vianzon, A.M. No. RTJ021682, March 23, 2004, 426 SCRA 56, 61,
Agcaoili v. Ramos, A.M. No. MTJ926251, February 7, 1994, 229 SCRA 705, 710
(citation omitted), Uy v. DizonCapulong, A.M. No. RTJ91766, April 7, 1993, 221
SCRA 87, 95 (citation omitted).
32 Obedencio, Jr. v. Murillo, A.M. No. RTJ031753, February 5, 2004, 422
SCRA 21, 24 (citation omitted).
33 Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3, Rule 3.01.
374

Genil vs. Rivera
he owes the public and the court the duty to be proficient in the
law. Unfamiliarity with the Rules of Court is a sign of
incompetence. Basic rules must be at the palm of his hands. A
judge must be acquainted with legal norms and precepts as well
as with procedural rules. x x x
xxxx
Verily, failure to follow basic legal commands embodied
in the law and the Rules constitutes gross ignorance of the
law, from which no one is excused, and surely not a
34
judge.” (Emphasis and italics supplied)
For gross ignorance of the law or procedure then, which is

classified as a serious charge under Rule 140 35 of the Rules
of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 01810SC, this Court
faults respondent for which, under Section 11 of the same
rule, any of the following sanctions may be imposed: (1)
dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the
benefits as the Court may determine, and disqualification
from reinstatement or appointment to any public office,
including governmentowned or controlled corporations;
provided, however, that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no
case include accrued leave credits; (2) suspension from
office without salary and other benefits for more than three
(3) but not exceeding six (6) months; or (3) a fine of more
than P20,000 but not exceeding P40,000.
The recommendation of the OCA to impose a fine of
P21,000, being welltaken, is approved.
WHEREFORE, for gross ignorance of the law and
procedure, respondent, Judge Rogaciano Y. Rivera of the
Municipal Trial Court of Sta. Catalina, Negros Oriental, is
FINED in the amount of TWENTY ONE THOUSAND
(P21,000) PESOS and STERNLY WARNED that a
repetition of the same or similar act will merit a more
severe penalty.
_______________
34 Guillen v. Cañon, 424 Phil. 81, 8889; 373 SCRA 70, 76 (2002)
(citations omitted).
35 Promulgated on September 11, 2001 and effective on October 1, 2001.
375
VOL. 479, JANUARY 23, 2006 375

Office of the Court Administrator vs. Alumbres
Let a copy of this Decision be entered in Judge Rivera’s

personal record.
SO ORDERED.
Panganiban (C.J.), Puno, Quisumbing, Ynares

Santiago, SandovalGutierrez, Carpio, AustriaMartinez,
Corona, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, Tinga, ChicoNazario and
Garcia, JJ., concur.
Judge Rogaciano Y. Rivera meted with P21,000.00 fine

for gross ignorance of the law, with stern warning against
repetition of similar act.
Notes.—A judge may not be administratively charged

for mere errors of judgment in the absence of a showing of
any bad faith, malice or corrupt purpose on his part. (Heirs
of the Late Nasser D. Yasin vs. Felix, 250 SCRA 545 [1995])
A judge is guilty of gross ignorance of the law and grave
abuse of judicial authority for having precipitately
adjudged a person guilty of indirect contempt in utter
disregard of the elementary rules of procedure. (Castaños
vs. Escaño, Jr., 251 SCRA 174 [1995])
——o0o——
© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Genil v. Rivera

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Genil v. Rivera

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

4/4/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 479

VOL. 479, JANUARY 23, 2006 363

JESUSA ODONEL GENIL, complainant, vs. JUDGE

Criminal Procedure; Preliminary Investigation; Right of

364 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Genil vs. Rivera

interest in the case.—The same Rule on Examination of a Child

VOL. 479, JANUARY 23, 2006 365

Genil vs. Rivera

with the statutes and procedural rules. When the law is so

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court. Gross

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Judge Rogaciano Y. Rivera (respondent) of the Municipal

1 Rollo, pp. 2­4.

366 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

tively. On even date, Nancy also filed a criminal complaint

VOL. 479, JANUARY 23, 2006 367

mediately conducted as the evidence was “weak” and

368 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

the defense claim that the accused and Nancy were

during the preliminary investigation, and respondent even

“x x x [Respondent] took no action on Criminal Case No. 3793

VOL. 479, JANUARY 23, 2006 369

preliminary investigation in Criminal Case Nos. 3791 and 3792

witness and her mother which caused them extreme humiliation

19 Id., at pp. 82­83.

370 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

the Provincial Prosecution Office of Negros Oriental,

for lack of merit.

(e) The investigating officer may set a hearing if there are

(f) Within ten (10) days after the investigation, the

Moreover, Section 5 of still the same Rule provides:

VOL. 479, JANUARY 23, 2006 371

SEC. 5. Resolution of investigating judge and its review.—Within

On top of the above­quoted provision of Sec. 3(e) of Rule

25 A.M. No. 00­4­07­SC.

372 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

As reflected earlier, while the criminal complaints of Nancy

3793 was filed, no action had yet been taken thereon by

“It is a fundamental principle that the accused in a preliminary

VOL. 479, JANUARY 23, 2006 373

complainant may present. Section 3, Rule 112 of the Rules of

Indubitably then, respondent was remiss in the

“x x x Indeed, competence is a mark of a good judge. When a judge

374 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

For gross ignorance of the law or procedure then, which is

VOL. 479, JANUARY 23, 2006 375

Let a copy of this Decision be entered in Judge Rivera’s

Panganiban (C.J.), Puno, Quisumbing, Ynares­

Judge Rogaciano Y. Rivera meted with P21,000.00 fine

Notes.—A judge may not be administratively charged

© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like

1 Rollo, pp. 24.

19 Id., at pp. 8283.

On top of the abovequoted provision of Sec. 3(e) of Rule

25 A.M. No. 00407SC.

Panganiban (C.J.), Puno, Quisumbing, Ynares