Manuel J. Laserna Jr., Laserna Cueva-Mercader Law Offices, Las Pinas City, Philippines.
Friday, April 8, 2016
Hold departure order (HDO)
vs. JUDGE MARINO S. BUBAN, MTCC, Tacloban City Branch 1, A.M. No.
MTJ-01-1349. July 12, 2001.
“x x x.
Circular No. 39-97 limits the authority to
issue hold-departure orders to criminal cases within the jurisdiction of second
level courts. Paragraph No. 1 of the said circular specifically
provides that “hold-departure orders shall be issued only in criminal cases
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts.”
Clearly then, criminal cases within the
exclusive jurisdiction of First Level Courts do not fall within the ambit of
the circular, and it was an error on the part of respondent judge to have
issued one in the instant case.
Canon 3, Rule 3.01 of the Code of Judicial
Conduct exhorts judges to be “faithful to the law and maintain professional
The Court, in exercising administrative
supervision of all lower courts, has not been remissed in reminding the members
of the bench to exert due diligence in keeping abreast with the development in
law and jurisprudence.
Besides, Circular No. 39-97 is not a new
circular. It was circularized in 1997 and violation of which has
been accordingly dealt with in numerous cases before the Court. Herein
judge, therefore, cannot be excused for his infraction. Judges should
always be vigilant in their quest for new developments in the law so they could
discharge their duties and functions with zeal and fervor.