Administrative Order No. 108, August 31, 1964

CONSIDERING MR. ARISTOTLE A. TUASON RESIGNED AND SEPARATED FROM OFFICE AS MUNICIPAL JUDGE OF VIGAN, ILOCOS SUR

These are two administrative cases (Nos. 44 and 47) against Mr. Aristotle A. Tuason, municipal judge of Vigan, Ilocos Sur. Under the first case, which involves acts of the respondent while still, municipal judge of San Ildefonso, Ilocos Sur, he is charged with (l) gross ignorance of the law, (2) performance of two inconsistent positions at the same time, (3) ignorance of court procedure, (4) taking cognizance of cases Involving his relatives and (5) corrupt and immoral practices. In the second case, which involves acts of the respondent as municipal judge of Vigan, he is charged with (l) gross ignorance of the law-on two counts, (2) persecution, abuse of authority and vindictiveness, (3) allowing his counsel in Administrative Case No. 44 to appear before his court, (4) falsification of time record, (5) abandonment of office and (6) causing the disappearance of documents in his custody.

The charges were investigated by the District Judge of the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur, after respondent had unsuccessfully tried to have the charges dismissed by the investigating, judge, and the latter enjoined by the Supreme. Court from hearing the case.

A persual of the record shows that the charge of corrupt and immoral practices in Criminal Cases Nos. 2155, 2165, 2169, 2170 and 2020 has not been satisfactorily proved. Likewise, complainant failed to prove the charges that respondent falsified his time record for October 8, 1960, and that he caused the disappearance of the declaration of the accused in Criminal Cases Nos. 2143 and 2144.

It is also believed that the respondent did not commit unethical acts by failing to disqualify himself from certain cases filed with his court. While it is true that defendants in Criminal Cases Nos. 2191, 2192, 2228 and 2246 were related to him by affinity within the sixth degree, he did nothing more than receive the complaints, issue the corresponding warrants of arrest, set the amount of bail, approve the required bail bonds, and thereafter he disqualified himself. Although in principle respondent could have disqualified himself immediately upon receiving the complaints, his actuations cannot, however be considered irregular or immoral, as no prejudice was caused to the offended parties, in those cases. On the contrary, he rose above the feelings of kinship by giving due course to the complaints and issuing the warrants of arrest instead of suppressing the charges.

Neither is there any irregularity or illegality in: respondents failure to disqualify himself in Criminal Cases Nos. 2050, 2131, 2264 and. 2267. The fact that the defendants therein were represented by Atty. Constante Pimentel, respondents counsel in Administrative Case No. 44, is not violative of the rule on disqualification of judges found in Section 1 of Rule 137 of the Rules of Court, The relationship between the respondent and Atty. Pimentel, being neither by consanguinity nor by affinity, but merely professional, is not the kind covered m the Rules. He may have violated the canons of judicial ethics, but the same, though desirable and salutary, do not constitute legal grounds for disqualification of judges, in addition to those provided in the Rules (Talisay Silay Milling Co. vs. Judge Teodoro, G.R. No. L-4579; March 31, 1952).

However, as to the other charges, respondent displayed ignorance of the law when he imposed an indeterminate sentence of “two (2) months and one (1) day to three months of arresto menor” in Criminal Case No. R-100. It is a basic qualification of the Indeterminate Sentence Law that its provisions do not apply where the maximum penalty is less than one (1) year. He also showed lack of thoroughness in approving a guardians bond executed in a form for criminal bail bond. His excuse that the proper form was not then available deserves scant consideration because it could have: been easily procured from Vigan, which is very near San Ildefonso, his station.

The respondent also acted erroneously in Criminal Case No. 2378 by taking into account against the accused the aggravating circumstance, of superior strength, which was neither alleged in the complaint nor proved by evidence, the accused having pleaded guilty. He was also grossly ignorant, of the law when he simultaneously discharged the duties of municipal judge of San Ildefonso and municipal councilor of Vigan for nine (9) months and collected his emoluments, under both offices.

Likewise, respondent seriously impaired and compromised his position as municipal judge when he affixed his signature as municipal councilor of Vigan to Resolution No. 64 of the municipal council, endorsing the candidacy of a certain candidate in the 1957 presidential elections.

Finally, respondent acted maliciously in coursing through the mails his notice to the auxiliary municipal judge, complainant herein, of his intention to go on leave on July 16-18, 1961, despite the fact that both of them resided in the same place. This was done apparently to prevent the auxiliary judge from assuming the office during his absence. In this regard, respondent not only acted with spite against the auxiliary judge, his adversary in these administrative proceedings, but also prejudiced the public service for causing the office to be vacant during his three days leave.

Respondents proven mistakes and indiscretions reflect adversely on his capacity and preparedness for the important office of municipal judge warranting his separation therefrom. Wherefore, Mr. Aristotle A. Tuason is hereby considered resigned and separated as municipal judge of Vigan, Ilocos Sur, without prejudice to reinstatement in another branch of the government service.

Done in the City of Manila, this 31st day of August, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and sixty-four.

(Sgd.) DIOSDADO MACAPAGAL

President of the Philippines

By the President:

(Sgd.) JUAN S. CANCIO

Acting Assistant Executive Secretary