Martin v. Guerrero | Writ | Habeas Corpus

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 3
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Information Report
Category:

Documents

Published:

Views: 9 | Pages: 3

Extension: DOCX | Download: 0

Share
Related documents
Description
election law
Transcript
  Martin vs. Guerrero Petitioner/ Complainant: Gil MartinRespondent: Judge Eleuterio GuerreroFacts:December 27, !! , a Petition #or $abeas Corpus dated December 2%, !! &as #iled be#ore t'e R(C o# (aga)ta) Cit),Maria *ictoria + -rdiales against Gil Martin #or t'e custod) o# t'eir begotten minor c'ild born out o# &edloc. duringt'eir union-n December 2, !! , t'e +'eri## submitted 'is +'eri##s return certi#)ing t'erein t'at on t'at same da) 'e ser0ed a cop)o# t'e 1rit o# $abeas Corpus Most notabl), t'e +'eri## did not mention in 'is return t'at 'e e##ected ser0ice o# t'e courts processes at t'e business address indicated in t'is complaint because bot' t'e +ummons, 33E4 5 and t'e 1rit o# $abeas Corpus, 33E4 C directed 'im to e##ect suc' ser0ice at )our undersigned residence at 26 Madrid +t, 5F $omes,Paraaue, Metro Manila 8 8 8Gil Martin #ailed to appear in t'e sc'eduled 'earing o# December 2!, !! , so t'e respondent Judge issued an order inopen court on t'e said date directing t'e undersigned to appear be#ore t'e said court at :9 ocloc. in t'e morning o# Jan , !!% to s'o& cause &') no puniti0e action &ill be ta.en #or 'is re#usal to ac.no&ledge receipt o# t'e 1rit and #or #ailure to appear; -n Jan 6, !! , Deput) +'eri## certi#ied on 'is s'eri##<s return t'at on t'e same da) 'e ser0ed a cop) o# t'e order andalias &rit upon t'e undersigned at 'is residence t'ru 'is maid, +usan 3adal -n t'e da) o# t'e re=sc'eduled 'earing Martin still did not appear so respondent Judge issued a 1arrant #or t'e arrest o# t'e undersigned nd 35> agents bes?ie@ged 'is residence at 5F $omes Petitioner: ('e 35> #ailed to arrest Martin but t'e &'ole e8ercise #or a duration o# time t'at lasted e0en t'erea#ter, or up toJan 2, !!%, t'e date t'at 1arrant o# rrest &as li#ted and 1rit o# $abeas Corpus dissol0ed, t'e petitioner, 'is subAectc'ild and all t'e members o# t'e 'ouse'old including 'is emplo)ees, &ent t'ru an untold lengt' o# immeasurable #ear,emotional and mental anguis', sleepless nig'ts, p')sical and mental stress and #atigue aggra0ated b) a sense o# 'umiliation and p')sical insecurit) and sa#et) -n Jan , !!%, petitioner #iled an -mnibus Motion be#ore t'e subAect court o# t'e respondent Judge pra)ing #or t'edismissal o# t'e case as &ell as see.ing #or t'e disuali#ication o# respondent Judge #rom t'e case Petitioner: ('e court o# respondent Judge did not 'a0e Aurisdiction o0er t'e case nor o0er t'e person o# )our undersignedcomplainant nd not&it'standing t'e #ailure to #ile comment b) t'e Petitioner as reuired b) t'e court up to Jan 22,!!%, suc' #ailure amounted to an abandonment o# Petitioners rig't to do so, &'ic' in an) manner did not operate toe8culpate respondent Judge #rom issuing a ruling on t'e motion to dismiss in culpable and palpable 0iolation o# t'e t'reemont's period &it'in &'ic' to decide as mandated b) paragrap' >, +ec  , rticle *>>> o# t'e P'ilippine Constitution,considering t'at t'e last matter to be resol0ed &as t'e -mnibus Motion, 33E4 > &'ic' &as #iled on Jan ,!!% $ence, to date more t'an se0en B7 mont's 'a?s@ alread) lapsedRespondent: R(C 'ad Aurisdiction to issue t'e 1rit o# $abeas Corpus   Jurisdiction:- is totally untrue and bereft of factual and legal moorings. Regional Trial Court of Tagaytay City,like any other regional trial court in the country, is vested with concurrent srcinal jurisdiction not only with theCourt of !!eals but also with the u!reme Court of the #hili!!ines !ursuant to the e$!licit !rovisions of ection%& of the Judiciary Reorgani'ation ct (JR) or *+  and the ruling enunciated in the case of lmine vs. C,& CR /. 0elay: nent the remaining charge of 1il Ramon +. 2artin, let me stress that my failure to act or resolve hismotion to dismiss, as the same is incor!orated in his +mnibus 2otion, is attributable to the fact that he, in the+mnibus 2otion itself, asked for my dis3ualification, if not inhibition, from taking !art in !ec. #roc. Case 4o.T1-&55%. Thus, 6 deemed it best and !ro!er to inhibit, if not dis3ualify myself from further handling the case. Office of the Court Administrator (OCA):  Rafael r. vs. #uno (/ CR &&5)  a &rit o# 'abeas corpus t'at ma) be issued b) a Court o# First >nstance or a Audge t'ereo# is en#orceable onl) &it'in 'is Audicial district and not outside it Clearl), (aga)ta) Cit) BFourt'Judicial Region, t'e site o# t'e court &'ere Judge Guerrero presides, and Paranaue B3ational Capital JudicialRegion &'ere t'e complainant resides do not belong to t'e same region ('ere#ore respondent Judge ma) beconsidered to 'a0e e8ceeded 'is aut'orit) in issuing t'e contested &rit-n t'e matter o# dela) in resol0ing t'e motion #iled b) complainant, &e #ind t'at Judge Guerreros alleged0oluntar) in'ibition #rom t'e case does not relie0e 'im #rom responsibilit) because an unAusti#ied dela) 'asne0ert'eless been incurred in t'e meantime $is in'ibition at t'is time seems more li.e an a#tert'oug't, a de0iceto e0ade or camou#lage t'e real issue o# #ailure to seasonabl) rule on t'e pending motion >t must 'o&e0er benoted t'at our records do not s'o& t'at Judge Guerrero #iled &it' t'is -##ice 'is -rder o# >n'ibition, &'ic' s'ould be t'e most telling proo# o# 'is 0oluntar) disuali#ication, i# at all SC: upheld OCA IGNORANC O! # $A% 5P 2! pro0ides t'at Regional (rial Courts s'all e8ercise srcinal Aurisdiction B in t'e issuance o# &rits o# certiorari , pro'ibition, mandamus, 3uo warranto , habeas corpus  and in&unction 'hich ma e enforced in an part of theirrespective re*ions  8 8 8 +EC 2 2 R-C= 7ho may grant the writ   == ('e &rit o# habeas cor!us  ma) be granted b) 8 8 8 a Regional (rial Court,or a Audge t'ereo#, on an) da) and at an) time, and returnable be#ore 'imsel#, enforceale onl 'ithin his &udicialdistrict  BEmp'asis supplied$ence R(Cs  have &urisdiction to issue 'rits of habeas corpus  onl 'hen such 'rits can e enforced 'ithin theirrespective &udicial districts+ as e,traordinar 'rits issued  them are limited to and operative onl 'ithin suchareas   . ?%@     Clearl) t'en, respondent Audge 'ad no aut'orit) to issue a &rit o# habeas cor!us  against 'erein complainant, &'o&as a resident o# Paranaue, an area outside 'is Audicial Aurisdiction ?7@ lt'oug' respondent erred in issuing t'e 1rit, his error did not constitute *ross i*norance of la'.  1ell=settled ist'e rule t'at in t'e absence o# #raud, dis'onest) or corruption, erroneous acts o# a Audge in 'is Audicial capacit) are notsubAect to disciplinar) action, ?@  #or no magistrate is in#allible ?!@  >n t'e present case, complainant #ailed to s'o& bad #ait'or malice on t'e part o# t'e respondent >ndeed + an alle*ation of ad faith is ne*ated  the fact that respondent+upon the motion of complainant+ dissolved the %rit of  Habeas Corpus  and recalled the %arrant of Arrest. ?@   3onet'eless, as t'e -C emp'asied, Audges 'a0e a dut) to e8'ibit more t'an Aust a cursor) acuaintance &it'statutes and procedural rules >t is imperati0e, t'ere#ore, t'at t'e) remain con0ersant &it' basic legal principles ?@  For committing an error on a  basic legal point, respondent s'ould be sanctioned ON -$A Respondent Audge s'ould also be 'eld liable #or 'is #ailure to rule promptl) on complainants -mnibus Motion #ise,planation that he opted to inhiit himself from further proceedin* 'ith the case did not &ustif the dela. It 'ashis dut to resolve matters pendin* efore him e,peditiousl 1e reiterate t'at dela) in resol0ing motions and incidents pending be#ore a Audge 'ithin the /01da period fi,ed the Constitution amounts not onl to *ross inefficienc ut also constitutes a violation of Rule 2.03+ Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct  + 'hich mandates that a ma*istrate shall dispose of the courts usiness promptl anddecide cases 'ithin the re4uired periods  ?2@
Recommended
View more...
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks