[ ADM. MATTER NO. 60-MJ. May 27, 1974 ] 156 Phil. 52
FIRST DIVISION
[ ADM. MATTER NO. 60-MJ. May 27, 1974 ]
EVANGELINE VALLE, COMPLAINANT, VS. MUN. JUDGE JUAN G. ESGUERRA, RESPONDENT. D E C I S I O N
CASTRO, J.:
The respondent Juan G. Esguerra, municipal judge of Taytay, Rizal, stands charged in this administrative case, filed by Evangeline Valle, with knowingly rendering an unjust judgment. The judgment referred to absolved one Carmen Esguerra of the charge of slight physical injuries allegedly committed upon the person of Valle. After respondent filed his answer, the complainant and the respondent manifested that they had no further evidence to present. For reasons not found in the record, no stenographic notes were taken of the testimonial evidence adduced by both the prosecution and the defense during the trial of the criminal case, despite the fact that the Taytay municipal court was at the time already a court of record; but it can be gleaned from the memorandum of the defendant that she pleaded self-defense. The decision rendered by the respondent judge acquitting Carmen Esguerra merely stated that after evaluating the declarations of all the witnesses of both parties as well as the documentary evidence introduced by them, the court was of the opinion that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The decision does not contain a statement of the facts proved upon which the acquittal is based. This omission is in violation of section 77 of the Judiciary Act, as amended by Republic Act 6031, which provides that judgments on the merits rendered by municipal and city judges shall state “clearly the facts and the law on which they are based . . ..” This Court has no basis upon which to adjudge the respondent as having knowingly rendered an unjust judgment. Still, although the respondent might have acted in good faith, he nevertheless was in error in rendering the decision that fails to comply with the requirements of law. ACCORDINGLY, the administrative charge against the respondent judge is dismissed. He is, however, admonished to comply strictly henceforth with the provisions of law hereinbefore cited in the preparation of his decisions, and warned that a repetition of the same omission will merit stern disciplinary action. Makalintal, C.J., Makasiar, Esguerra, and Munoz Palma, JJ., concur. Teehankee, J., see concurring opinion.