Diaz Spouses v Judge Asadon

SC rules Judge Asadon committed grave abuse of authority for issuing a premature warrant of
arrest, w/o allowing the spouses Diaz to file their counter-affidavits

Facts:

 spouses Avelino and Asteria Daiz accused respondent Judge Asadon, of evident bias and
partiality, abuse of authority and violation of Supreme Court circulars on punctuality and
observance of office hours
 Around noon, the spouses were charged with Slight Phyisical Injuries by the MTC,
presided by Judge Asadon, and on the same day, they were arrested and brought to the
municipal jail. They were not accorded the right to file their counter-affidavits.
 The couple were able to ask the assistance of an lawyer who issued an Omnibus Motion,
but no one was able to act on it since the judge went home the same day. The employees
of MTC told them the judge arrives late and go homes early.
 In his defense, the judge issued the warrant of arrest due to the fact that the couple were
about to escape. He did not go home but went to another hearing and in addition, he was
not aware that the complainant was a relative of the judge’s daughter in law
 The Court Administrator exonerated the Judge from all charges except abuse of authority

Issue:

WON the Judge exhibited grave abuse of authority when it issued a warrant of arrest
against the couple

Ruling:

 SC rules Judge committed grave abuse of authority. The accused should first be notified
of the charges against them and given the opportunity to let their counter-affidavits and
other countervailing evidence. It cannot be justified on the ground that respondent
judge has information that the spouses would escape

 We nd the charges of evident bias and partiality and violation of our circulars on punctuality
and observance of oce hours to be without basis. Complainants alleged that "the daughter-
in-law of Feleciano Bade who is the complainant against us is a relative of the wife of
Judge Asadon." The respondent judge categorically belied the existence of any kinship
between his wife and his accusers' victim. Complainants did not offer an iota of evidence to
prove otherwise. Similarly unsubstantiated is the charge that the respondent judge did not
observe oce hours. To be sure, the charge is mere hearsay

Slight physical injury is a light offense, therefore no warrant of arrest should be issued
Since Judge died, penalty (P10k) to be deducted from his retirement benefits