In decades past, the municipal or town judge was known by its appellation as the justice of the peace, a lower magistrate whose immediate superior was the district judge, today’s equivalent of the regional trial court (RTC) judge. As a presidential appointee, he was subject to the discipline of the chief executive of the country.
One case that deserves a visit involves the dismissal from service of a town judge assigned in Gov. Generoso, Davao on January 29, 1964, a municipality who got its name from a popular politician who had been known to hide skeletons in his closet. This case involved Orlando S. Rimando who, under Administrative Order No. 82 signed by then President Diosdado Macapagal, was deemed “resigned and separated” from the service.
Rimando’s case stemmed from an administrative case filed by Catalino Sagulla, the municipal mayor, who accused the justice of the peace for committing a variety of irregularities. Under the judicial protocol, he was investigated by an unnamed district judge and was found guilty. His removal stemmed from three violations, namely:
First, he was accused of “taking advantage of his official position, made immoral advances to Gloria Obial while the latter was detained in the municipal jail in connection with a criminal case for adultery then pending in his court.”
Second, “he failed to keep a proper record by means of appropriate orders of the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 764 of his court, particularly the various postponements, which gave reasonable ground to believe that he did not attend his court on the dates set for the trial of the case, except on two occasions.”
And third, “he violated the Civil Service rules and regulations by failing to file formally an application for leave of absence for the period March 4 to 7, 1959, when he was absent in his court to appear in a case in the Justice of the Peace Court of Initao, Misamis Oriental, even after his return to his station.”
Obial, an accused in an adultery case, was a detainee at the municipal jail of Gov. Generoso during the period October 13-26, 1955. While under confinement, the town judge managed to bring her out of jail and had sex twice in his office with the promise she would be freed because the justice of the peace was the only person in town with the highest legal authority.
Obviously elated by his successful sexcapade, the judge, on his second ‘invitation’, ordered a policeman to fetch the woman and bring her to his house where, again, he had sexual intercourse with the accused. On the third attempt, the plan failed because the cop on duty at the jail (when detention centers were secured by policemen) did not allow her to go out. This was corroborated by her co-accused corroborated during the inquiry conducted by the district judge.
As expected, the jail guard denied there was untoward incident in the two nights the woman was allowed to go out of jail and meet the town judge. Worse, the jail guard testified the respondent never entered the detention facility. The investigation, though, yielded different results. Accordingly, “the investigating Judge did not give credence to the testimony of the policeman [sic] for the reason that if their statement were otherwise they would be proceeded against criminally or administratively for neglect of official duties.
“That respondent committed the acts imputed to him is not improbable considering as regards the first occasion, the fact that the municipal jail where she was detained is situated in the same building as the office of the justice of the peace and at the time there was only one policeman on duty. As to the second occasion, she was taken to the place where respondent was living. It bears nothing that respondent chose the dead of the night to gratify his sexual urge.”
The district judge also dismissed the claim there was bad political blood between the justice and the municipal mayor, saying “it is believed rather remote that a woman would allow herself to be used as an instrument of either protagonist for inflicting harm on the other, especially so when her honor is involved” and that the willingness of the woman to yield to the advances of the court official could “be attributed to the fact that she is illiterate and believed that her freedom depended on the respondent as he had impressed upon her.”
In the second and third accusations, the findings found the magistrate “guilty of immorality and dereliction of duty.” In part, the results of the query, retold in the presidential order, noted:
“With respect to the second finding, the record shows that Criminal Case No. 764 of respondent’s court for serious physical injuries was set for trial seven times but only two orders postponing the trial were made… All these scheduled hearings were not held and there is no record to show the reason for the failure to hold such hearings. According to the testimony of two witnesses for the complainant, the case was postponed several times because the judge was not present. The evidence confirms their testimony.
“As to the third finding, the evidence shows that respondent was absent from his court to appear in a case before the justice of the peace of Initao, Misamis Oriental, from March 4 to 7, 1959, without any corresponding leave of absence.”
Finally, the President, obviously convinced with the findings, said “there is no choice left but to terminate respondent’s official relation with the government.”
