RTC Judge Baluma reprimanded by SC

FOR ordinary people, it may a be lapse in judgment. But for a judge to miss it, the Supreme Court (SC) calls it gross and inexcusable ignorance of the law. With the spotlight trailed on him after lambasting the city government for its lack of concern for the youth, Judge Teofilo Baluma again is in focus with the surfacing of an SC decision penned March 23, 2004. The legal mistake Baluma made, the SC noted that the judge should not have missed basic legal principles, a fact unthinkable for judges who should have more than a cursory acquaintance with statutes and procedural laws. For the decision, Judge Baluma has filed a motion for reconsideration but the SC Second Division dismissed the motion. Moreover, the SC turned down a Baluma pleading to down grade the harsh sanction imposed upon him. From what Court Administrator Presbitero Velasco noted on the administrative complaint filed against the Family Court judge, he saw it was not a serious one to merit much ado. Instead he recommended a reprimand with a stern warning that a recurrence of similar acts would be dealt with more severely.

COMPLAINT

Baluma's worries started when Visitacion Estodillo has filed an administrative complaint against Baluma in December of 2002. Baluma, who was the Regional Trial Court Branch 1 (Family Court) judge dismissed a criminal case, originally filed for preliminary investigation with the 2nd Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Tubigon-Clarin. At the preliminary investigation, Judge James Stewart Himalaloan found sufficient ground for the case of Other Acts of Child Abuse to prosper. With the case transmitted to Provincial Prosecutor Macario Delusa, the provincial prosecutor also filed an information dated October 28, 2002. Baluma however dismissed the information on November 21 arguing that the records forwarded in the case were not subscribed and sworn by the prosecutor. Baluma, said the prosecutor's lapse would “militate the validity of the information towards nullity and worthlessness of the [case] same.” In response to the dismissal, Prosecutor Delusa filed a Motion for Reconsideration and Revival on December 12, stressing that there was no need to put the information under oath since it was a concurrence of the Judge Himalaloan resolution, which was already properly subscribed. By January 10, Baluma issued an order granting the motion for reconsideration and reviving the case, but also asking the public prosecutor to file a new information “incorporating the formalities” he was asking earlier. Twenty days later, the prosecution filed an ex-parte motion to increase bail bond of the accused but Baluma refused to act on it pending compliance of the order to file new information. The prosecution manifested that it “would not file a new information as ordered for it would be contrary to law and jurisprudence and is unprocedural. In the impasse for bail bond request, complainant Estodillo asked for the Court intervention, citing that Baluma has also dismissed another case on strikingly similar grounds.

SIMILAR CASE

On that Baluma dismissed case, the prosecution through a motion for reconsideration explained that only complaints are required to be under oath, not a properly subscribed information. With the argument, Baluma granted the motion and revived the case without asking for new information refiling. Using the argument, complainant charged that what Baluma was doing was a clear gross ignorance of the law.

BALUMA'S REPLY

Commenting on the charge, Baluma cited that the complaint lacked a certification of non-forum shopping. He alleged further that the complainant, upon instigation by Prosecutor Eric Ucat and Atty Esther Gertrude Biliran were mentally dishonest for not mentioning that before the complaint was filed March 2003, Baluma had issued the order in February. With that, Baluma filed a counter-complaint against Prosecutor Ucat and Atty Biliran with administrative case for disbarment or disciplinary action for gross violation of the Code of Professional Conduct, deceit, dishonesty, failure to exercise candor, fairness, good faith, doing falsehood or consenting to its doing and abuse of procedures. While doing so, Baluma stressed that he efficiently discharged his duties even when his Branch is one of the most burdened branches in Tagbilaran. In their rejoinders, both Ucat and Biliran denied participation in filing the complaints except taking the oath of complainants

SUPREME COURT FINDINGS

Court Administrator Velasco stressed that indeed, “information need not be under oath, knowing that the prosecuting officer is acting the special responsibility of his oath of office”. Velasco added that the respondent erred, though not seriously, in dismissing the information for not being under oath. With this, Velasco recommended a reprimand for Baluma with a stern warning that a recurrence would merit more drastic action of the court. While the Supreme court dismissed for lack of merit the counter complaint against Prosecutor Ucat and Atty Biliran, it also found Baluma guilty of violation of Canon 3, Rule 3.0.1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The violation deserves a reprimand with a stern warning that a repetition of the same would be dealt with more severely.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

In his defense, Baluma filed a motion for reconsideration stating that his dismissal of the information was “being innovative in the search for truth” assuring validity of the information by making sure it goes without infirmity. Pleading further, considering that his decision was erroneous, his failure to interpret the law does not necessarily render him administratively liable. He said a disciplinary sanction goes for gross, malicious, deliberate or errors done in bad faith. Absent proof, he said a judge's decision is presumed to have been issued in good faith. (Ramir Mina vs Judge Rodolfo Gatdula, A.M. No. MTJ 00-1264) Moreover, citing Morada vs, Judge Taya, 48 SCAD 131, he said as a matter of policy, without fraud, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity even though erroneous are generally not subject to disciplinary action. In view of the above arguments, Baluma prayed for dismissal of the administrative case or at least a lesser sanction, a warning. The imposition of a reprimand will surely leave an indelible mark which altogether blackens and does not consider the sincere, dedicated plight and efforts to be an exemplar among those privileged to wear the robe, he said. Offering an apology for the lapse being an honest error, which was timely rectified, Baluma begged the court for only a plain warning. But in a resolution dated July 12, 2004 , the Second Division of the Supreme Court denied Baluma's motion for reconsideration with finality.

l