I.

LIM vs. DUMLAO A.M. No. MTJ-04-1556, 31 March 2005

Complainant : PURITA LIM
Respondent :JUDGE CESAR M. DUMLAO, Municipal Trial Court, San Mateo, Isabela
Ponente :YNARES-SANTIAGO
FACTS
o

Complainant Purita Lim (verified letter-complaint dated June 5, 2003) charged respondent Judge
Cesar M. Dumlao of the Municipal Trial Court of San Mateo, Isabela, with Gross Ignorance of the Law
and Grave Abuse of Authority.

Complainant filed two criminal cases for carnapping and theft with the RTC Santiago City, Isabela,
Branch 35, against a certain Herman A. Medina. Medina was apprehended and detained at the BJMP,
Santiago City Jail, by virtue of a Warrant of Arrest issued by Presiding Judge Fe Albano Madrid of
Branch 35. However, Dumlao issued three separate orders for the release of Medina on the ground
that he had posted bail with his court.

Lim alleged that Dumlao frequently approves bail bonds for cases filed in other courts and outside
the territorial jurisdiction of his court. He also issues search warrants for implementation outside of
his courts jurisdiction. Which, resultantly, are often quashed and the corresponding cases dismissed
because the articles seized were inadmissible as evidence.

As proof to her complaint, complainant attached three (3) copies of Search Warrant and was later
on ordered quashed for being infirmed and fatally defective.

Complainant requested for an investigation into the activities of respondent judge, Dumlao. Acting
on the said issue, Court Administrator referred the complaint to Dumlao requiring his comment
thereon within ten days from receipt, but he failed to file the required comment notwithstanding his
receipt of the order.

The OCAs evaluation stated :

Respondents failure to submit his comment as required is indicative of his admission of the charges
pending against him. Indeed, the practice of respondent accepting and approving bail bonds of
detained persons who are charged of crimes in courts other than his own constitutes gross
ignorance of the law.

ISSUE
o

WoN respondent found guilty of Gross Ignorance of the Law and Grave Abuse of Authority by
approving bail bonds for accused person who were detained in another place outside his territorial
jurisdiction.

HELD / DECISION
o

Yes. Judge Cesar M. Dumlao of the Municipal Trial Court of San Mateo, Isabela, is found GUILTY of
Gross Ignorance of the Law and Grave Abuse of Authority and was SUSPENDED from office for a
period of six (6) months without salary and other benefits with a WARNING that a repetition of the
same shall merit a more serious penalty.

It is elementary that a municipal trial court judge has no authority to grant bail to an accused
arrested outside of his territorial jurisdiction. The requirements of Section 17(a), Rule 114 must be
complied with before a judge may grant bail. The Court recognizes that not every judicial error
bespeaks ignorance of the law and that, if com mitted in good faith, does not warrant administrative
sanction, but only in cases within the parameters of tolerable misjudgment. Where, however, the
law is straightforward and the facts so evident, not to know it or to act as if one does not know it
constitutes gross ignorance of the law.

Respondent judge undeniably erred in approving the bail and issuing the order of release. He is
expected to know that certain requirements ought to be complied with before he can approve
Medinas bail and issue an order for his release. The law involved is rudimentary that it leaves little
room for error.

Espaol and Suluen v. Mupas, the court have stated:

Thus, a judge who approves applications for bail of accused whose cases were not only pending in
other courts but who were, likewise, arrested and detained outside his territorial jurisdiction is guilty
of gross ignorance of the law and violates Rule 3.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. It must be
emphasized that the rules of procedure have been formulated and promulgated by this Court to
ensure the speedy and efficient administration of justice. Failure to abide by these rules undermines
the wisdom behind them and diminishes respect for the law. Judges should ensure strict compliance
therewith at all times in their respective jurisdictions.

Respondent judges predicament is further aggravated by his unauthorized or irregular issuance of search
warrants not once but a number of times. His violations cannot be excused as mere lapses in judgment but
blatant