Respondents were administratively accused of partiality for failure to disqualify themselves from entertaining a case where one of the parties is a close relative of respondent Judge Guillermo Pasion and who lives in a house owned by respondent Judge Andres Domingo. During the investigation, complainant refused to be served with a subpoena requiring him to appear so that he may first swear to the complaint which was not under oath, and thereafter to testify and prove his allegations. Complainant’s conduct hampered the proceedings; hence, the investigating judge recommended the dismissal of the complaint. The Judicial Consultant indorsed the recommendation.

The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint.

1. ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT; DISMISSAL; COMPLAINT’S LACK INTEREST NOT SUFFICIENT GROUND FOR DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT. — The Supreme Court did not perfunctorily accept the recommendation of the investigating judge to dismiss the case because it is not enough that the complaint against the respondents be dismissed due to the persistent refusal of the complainant to be served with a subpoena in connection with a hearing. But the Judicial Consultant, stressing on the conduct of the complainant who had consistently declined to accept even the service of the subpoena so that he could appear at the investigation to enable him to prove the merits of his charges, agreed with the recommendation. Under the circumstances no other conclusion is warranted than to dismiss the complaint.

R E S O L U T I O N

This Court, especially so after Gutierrez v. Santos, 1 has ever been on the alert to avoid bias or prejudice tainting the actuations of a judge. The administrative complaint in this case was based on such surmise. More specifically, respondent City Judge Andres Domingo and former Auxiliary City Judge Guillermo Pasion, both of Laoag City, were accused of partiality. The matter was referred to Executive Judge Manuel V. Romillo, Jr. of the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte for investigation, report and recommendation. On March 15, 1973, he issued the following order: "Upon a clear showing that the alleged complainant Pablo Marcos has persistently refused to be served with the subpoena in connection with the hearing set for this date so that he may come before this Court, first to swear to the truth of his complaint and thereafter to testify and prove the allegations contained therein, the Court is, therefore, not in a position to proceed with the investigation inasmuch as there is nothing to investigate, the alleged complaint not being under oath. [In view of all the foregoing], the Court is constrained to [dismiss] the complaint . . ." 2 This Court did not perfunctorily accept such recommendation. It was not enough that the complaint against the two respondent judges be dismissed due to the persistent refusal of complainant Pablo Marcos to be served with a subpoena in connection with a hearing. It took pains to inquire into the truth of the charge that notwithstanding the allegation that respondent Judge Guillermo Pasion is a near relative of one of the parties, Aurora Pasion Arce, who lived in a house owned by respondent Judge Andres Domingo, they did not disqualify themselves in a pending case. It is to be noted that there was a denial by both respondents, to which Judge Romillo lent credence. The matter was referred to the Judicial Consultant, Manuel P. Barcelona. He is of the view that the dismissal of the complaint is warranted. He would stress the conduct of the complainant himself who, had consistently declined to accept even the service of a subpoena so that he could appear at the investigation to enable him to prove whether the charges were in fact meritorious. It would appear that under the circumstances, no other conclusion is warranted.

WHEREFORE, the charges against City Judge Andres E. Domingo and former Auxiliary Judge Guillermo Pasion are dismissed.

Barredo, Antonio, Aquino and Concepcion, Jr., JJ., concur.

Endnotes:

---

1. L-15824, May 20, 1961, 2 SCRA 249. Subsequently thirteen cases, the latest of which is Castillo v. Juan, L-39516, Jan. 28, 1975, followed the principle there announced.

2. Order of Executive Judge Manuel V. Romillo, dated March 15, 1973.