FIRST DIVISION
REPORT ON
THE
JUDICIAL
AUDIT CONDUCTED
IN THE
MUNICIPAL
TRIAL COURT IN CITIES OF
PALAYAN
CITY.chanrobles virtual law library
A.M. No. 99-6-81-MTCC
June 10, 2003
R E S O L U T I O
N
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J.:
.
On March 18, 1999, the
Judicial Audit Team of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)
submitted
a report on the audit conducted in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities
of Palayan City, then presided by Judge Marciano C. Mauricio.[1]
In a resolution dated June 29, 1999, Judge Mauricio was directed by
this
Court to comment on a certification of Mrs. Rosita L. Bagan, Clerk of
Court
of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Palayan City, that the
accused
in Criminal Case No. 519-520, 523-527, and 528-534 were required to
post
additional cash bonds.
In the same resolution,
Clerk of Court Bagan was directed to: (1) explain why no administrative
sanction should be imposed upon her for failure to take initial
appropriate
action on Civil Cases No. 459, 462, 504, 505, 509, 512, and 514; (2)
ascertain
the status of Criminal Case No. 586 and 642 and to submit a report
thereon;
(3) submit immediately to this Court certified copies of the court
orders
which required the accused in Criminal Case No. 519 and 520 (Norma
Rabara),
523 to 527 (Eduviges Upana), and 528 to 534 (Lourdes Sicat) to post
additional
cash bonds in the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00), Fifteen
Thousand
Pesos (P15,000.00) and Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P15,000.00),
respectively;
(4) attach regularly to the records of criminal cases all official
receipts
of cash bonds with a warning that commission of the same infraction
will
be dealt with more severely; (5) apprise Judge Mauricio on the
eighty-two
(82) cases that were not further acted on or set in the calendar after
the lapse of a considerable length of time; and to submit a report on
compliance
with the foregoing directives.chanrobles virtual law library
Also, the resolution
required Judge Octavio A. Fernandez of the Municipal Circuit Trial
Court
of Gen. M. Natividad-Lianera, Nueva Ecija to transmit to the Clerk of
Court
of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Palayan City, the original
official
receipt of the Two Thousand Peso (P2,000.00) cash bond deposited for
the
provisional liberty of accused Florentino Marcelo in Criminal Case No.
505 and to submit a report on compliance with the foregoing directive.cralaw:red
Finally, the Court,
through said resolution, directed Judge Erlinda P. Buted, Executive
Judge
of the Regional Trial Court of Palayan City, to submit a report on the
investigation of the Ten Thousand Peso (P 10,000.00) cash bond
allegedly
received by Judge Mauricio in Criminal Case No. 6952-AF. This
investigation
was prompted by a letter received by the OCA on February 15, 1999 from
Efren S. Gabuyo, who claimed that he was the bondsman of Eduardo Pablo,
the accused in said case. He further claimed that Judge Mauricio
personally
received the cash bond and that, despite the dismissal of Criminal Case
No. 6952-AF, Judge Mauricio has not returned said cash bond.[2]
He wrote another letter inquiring about the status of his complaint,
and
said letter was received by the OCA on August 10, 1999.[3]
In his "Comment and
Manifestation," dated August 19, 1999, Judge Mauricio stated that he
required
the accused to post the additional cash bonds, allegedly in light of
the
guidelines set forth in the 1996 Bail Bond Guide.[4]
Furthermore, he alleged that Clerk of Court Bagan could not have known
of the deposit of the additional cash bonds, since she was on official
leave at the time the money was turned over to him.[5]
He claimed that the additional cash bonds posted by Rabara, Upana, and
Sicat were released to them after they were discharged from custody.
However,
he made no mention of the date of such release nor did he offer in
evidence
the receipts to prove such remittance.cralaw:red
On September 13, 1999,
Judge Fernandez wrote to Clerk of Court Bagan, stating that the
original
receipt for the cash bond in Criminal Case No. 505 and 506 was already
sent to the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Palayan City by his
Clerk
of Court, Mrs. Teresita Esteban. Bagan wrote back to Judge Fernandez in
a letter dated September 23, 1999, inquiring when the said official
receipt
was sent as well as what mode of service was used. In reply thereto,
Esteban
informed Bagan that she was not aware of the existence of any such
official
receipt, considering that Florentino Marcelo, the accused in Criminal
Case
No. 505 and 506, never posted a bond with her.chanrobles virtual law library
On December 2, 1999,
complainant Efren Gabuyo passed away while his complaint was still
pending.[6]
In compliance with the
directive of this Court, Bagan submitted an "Explanation," together
with
the requested certified copies of the Orders requiring additional cash
bonds from Rabara, Upana and Sicat. Bagan stated that she had not taken
initial action on the seven (7) aforementioned civil cases, all of
which
involve ejectment, because the defendant-squatters had either moved
away,
were never residents of the disputed area or have been served with
summonses
as defendants in an identical case.[7]
Evidently, the City Legal Officer had not yet filed the corresponding
Motions
to Dismiss. Regarding the status of Criminal Case No. 586 and 642, she
averred that the records were actually with Judge Mauricio. She also
stated
that she had been regularly attaching the official receipts of cash
bonds
to the corresponding records. Finally, she stated that she had apprised
Judge Mauricio of the status of the 82 cases pending in his sala and
which
had not yet been acted upon.[8]
The case was then referred
to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan City
for
investigation.cralaw:red
In answer to the letter-complaint
of the late Efren Gabuyo, Judge Mauricio denied that he received money
from the deceased, and stated that it was accused Pablo himself who
deposited
cash bond with the respondent. In support of this claim, he
presented
a sworn statement executed by Pablo to that effect which, however, did
not specify the date when the latter allegedly deposited the money.chanrobles virtual law library
Clerk of Court Bagan,
on the other hand, filed a "Compliance," dated March 30, 2000, wherein
she confirmed that she could not have known of Judge Mauricio’s orders
regarding the posting of additional cash bonds, since she was on
official
leave at the time. Furthermore, she stated that she personally went to
the residence of Rabara, Upana, and Sicat to elicit from them whether
or
not the additional cash bonds they posted were indeed returned to them.
As directed by this Court, Bagan secured the unverified, but signed,
comments
of Rabara, Upana, and Sicat, all of whom maintained that Mauricio had
not
yet returned to them the additional cash bonds they had posted.
Finally,
Bagan manifested that she had repeatedly asked Judge Mauricio to return
the records of Criminal Case No. 586 and 642, the date of her last
request
being on March 3, 2000, however, Judge Mauricio had not yet returned
the
same.cralaw:red
Meanwhile, Judge Fernandez
sent a letter to Judge Ballutay, dated May 10, 2000, stating that the
release
Order and other papers pertinent to Criminal Case No. 505 had been sent
to Judge Mauricio. He claims that in signing the release Order, he
merely
filled in for Judge Mauricio who was ill. It was allegedly Judge
Mauricio
who received the cash bond, thus, the papers he transmitted to Judge
Mauricio
did not include an official receipt for the same.cralaw:red
On May 22, 2000, Judge
Ballutay submitted his "Report and Recommendation," recommending that
the
complaint against Judge Mauricio be dismissed based on the Affidavit of
Desistance executed by the complainant’s son, Efren Gabuyo, Jr., on the
strength of a Special Power of Attorney furnished by the complainant’s
widow.cralaw:red
A follow-up judicial
audit was conducted in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Palayan
City
from July 9-11, 2001. The audit team found anomalies in the posting of
additional cash bonds in Criminal Case No. 542, 642 and 670, all
pending
in the sala of Judge Mauricio.chanrobles virtual law library
The case was thereafter
referred to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation,
report
and recommendation. The OCA recommended that (1) Mauricio be fined
Fifty
Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) for violating the rule on the posting of
cash
bond by receiving the money instead of directing the accused or any
person
acting in his behalf to deposit the cash with the nearest collector of
internal revenue or provincial, city or municipal treasurer, (2) the
Financial
Management Office of the OCA be authorized to deduct the aforementioned
amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) from the retirement
benefits
of Mauricio, (3) Clerk of Court Bagan be reprimanded for (a) not
exercising
diligence in her duties as custodian of court records, (b) not
immediately
informing the court of the facts as to when the records of Criminal
Case
No. 586 and 642 were returned by Judge Mauricio, and (c) not
immediately
submitting a report on the actual status of said cases as soon as the
case
records were returned by Judge Mauricio, with a warning that a
repetition
of the same infractions in the future would be dealt with more severely.cralaw:red
This case appears to
be on all fours with the case of Agulan v. Fernandez[9]
which, coincidentally, involved also Judge Octavio A. Fernandez. In the
said case, it was held that a judge is not one of those authorized to
receive
the deposit of cash as bail, nor should such cash be kept in the office
of the judge. The proper procedure in the handling of cash submitted or
given to the municipal court as bail bond is for the court to direct
the
clerk of court to officially receive the cash and to immediately
deposit
it with the municipal treasurer’s office. The transaction must not only
be properly receipted for but should also appear in the records of the
case.[10]
Unfortunately, the respondent failed to follow these procedures.cralaw:red
It is settled that clerks
of court are the custodians of all bail bonds, rental deposits and
other
fiduciary collections. In the ordinary course of proceedings, judges
have
nothing to do with the collections, because clerks of court are the
officers
mandated to deposit them with an authorized government depository bank.[11]
This policy is the spirit behind the wording of the pertinent provision
of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court:
Sec. 14. Deposit of
cash as bail. - The accused or any person acting in his behalf may
deposit
in cash with the nearest collector of internal revenue or provincial,
city,
or municipal treasurer the amount of bail fixed by the court, or
recommended
by the prosecutor who investigated or filed the case. Upon submission
of
a proper certificate of deposit and a written undertaking showing
compliance
with the requirements of Section 2 of this Rule, the accused shall be
discharged
from custody. The money deposited shall be considered as bail and
applied
to the payment of fine and costs while the excess, if any, shall be
returned
to the accused or to whoever made the deposit.cralaw:red
Furthermore, we are
not convinced by Judge Mauricio’s bare denials, accused Pablo’s
uncorroborated
statement, or by the desistance of the complainant’s heirs, in light of
the persistence shown by the complainant in pursuing his claim against
the respondent while he was still alive. The records show that the
complainant
wrote to the OCA twice regarding this matter.[12]
It is well settled that
in administrative cases of this nature, the court may proceed with its
investigation and mete out the appropriate penalty against erring
officers.[13]
The outcome of administrative actions does not depend upon the will of
every complainant who may, for one reason or another, condone a
detestable
act. Administrative cases against members of the bench are not
dismissed
on account of withdrawal of charges by the complainant.[14]
However, most telling
of all is the finding of the OCA that, subsequently, respondent’s son,
Melvin S. Mauricio, accompanied by a lawyer, deposited with Clerk of
Court
Bagan Forty-Two Thousand Pesos (P42,000.00) in cash. Interestingly,
this
amount is equal to the aggregate amount of additional cash bond
deposited
by Marcelo, Rabara, Upana, and Sicat, as ordered by the respondent.cralaw:red
Judge Mauricio’s actions
constitute gross misconduct, which constitute violation of several
provisions
of the Canons of Judicial Conduct and their related rules, to wit:
Canon 2. A JUDGE SHOULD
AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL ACTIVITIES
Rule 2.01. - A judge
should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the
integrity
and impartiality of the judiciary.cralaw:red
It is the duty of a
member of the bench to avoid any impression of impropriety to protect
the
image and integrity of the Judiciary. A judge’s official conduct should
be free from any appearance of impropriety. He must not act in a way
that
would cast suspicion in order to preserve the faith in the
administration
of justice. In the case of public servants who are in the judiciary,
their
conduct and behavior, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk,
must
not only be characterized by propriety and decorum but above all else,
must be above suspicion.[15]chanrobles virtual law library
Rule 140 of the Rules
of Court governs the discipline of judges,[16]
to wit:
SEC. 8. Serious charges.
- Serious charges include:
chan
robles virtual law library
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
3. Gross misconduct
constituting violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct
x x
x
x x
x
x x x
SEC. 11. Sanctions.
- A. If the respondent is guilty of a serious charge, any of the
following
sanctions may be imposed:
1. Dismissal from the
service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court may
determine,
and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public
office,
including government-owned or controlled corporations. Provided,
however,
that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave
credits;
2. Suspension from office
without salary and other benefits for more than three (3) but not
exceeding
six (6) months; or
3. A fine of more than
P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00.cralaw:red
A judge has the avowed
duty to promote public confidence in the judiciary. Judge Mauricio’s
actions
were not merely improper, they could bring the judiciary into a state
of
grave disrepute and widespread distrust.[17]
To our mind, the gravity
of the offense merits a penalty of suspension for six months. However,
this penalty cannot be imposed anymore upon Judge Mauricio, in view of
his disability retirement which became effective on November 19, 1999.
Hence, we are constrained to adopt the recommendation of the OCA
imposing
a fine on Judge Mauricio in the reduced amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos
(P20,000.00), pursuant to the afore-quoted rule.cralaw:red
As for Clerk of Court
Mrs. Rosita Bagan, her duty as the custodian of court records is laid
down
in Rule 136 of the Rules of Court:
SEC. 7. Safekeeping
of property. - The clerk shall safely keep all records, papers, files,
exhibits and public property committed to his charge, including the
library
of the court, and the seals and furniture belonging to his office.chanrobles virtual law library
This rule is now reflected
in Chapter VII (D) of the 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court,
which
provides:
D.
GENERAL FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES OF CLERKS OF COURT AND OTHER COURT PERSONEL
I.
Clerks of Court
1.1 Office
of the Clerk of Court
1.1.1
Clerk of Courtchanrobles virtual law library
x x
x
x x
x
x x x
1.1.1.2.
Non-Adjudicative Functionschanrobles virtual law library
x x
x
x x
x
x x x
b.
Controls and manages all court records, exhibits, documents, properties
and supplies;
A clerk of court is
an essential officer in the judicial system. His or her office is the
hub
of activities, and he or she is expected to be assiduous in performing
official duties and in supervising and managing the court’s dockets.
His
or her negligence in the performance of these duties warrants
disciplinary
action.[18]
Under the circumstances,
Clerk of Court Bagan is guilty of non-feasance for (1) not exercising
with
diligence her duties as custodian of court records; (2) not immediately
informing the court of the facts as to when the records of Criminal
Case
No. 586 and 642 were returned by Judge Mauricio; and (3) not
immediately
submitting a report on the actual status of said cases as soon as the
case
records were returned by Judge Mauricio (Criminal Case No. 2337-94),
which
were committed to her charge.cralaw:red
Finally, the controversy
regarding the existence of the official receipt issued for the cash
bond
supposedly posted by accused Florentino Marcelo in Criminal Case No.
505
and 506 has not escaped our attention. At first, Judge Fernandez, in
his
letter to Clerk of Court Bagan, dated September 13, 1999, claimed that
said receipt had already been sent to Judge Mauricio’s court, but in
his
letter to Judge Ballutay dated May 10, 2000, he claimed that no receipt
was ever sent. Normally, such inconsistencies could be attributed to a
misunderstanding between offices. Unfortunately, the fact that Judge
Fernandez
had been previously fined by this Court for failure to comply with the
rules regarding the procedure for acceptance and disposition of cash
bail
bonds impels further investigation of this matter.[19]
WHEREFORE, in view of
all the foregoing, Judge Marciano C. Mauricio is hereby found GUILTY of
gross misconduct constituting a violation of the Canons of Judicial
Conduct,
and is hereby FINED in the amount of P20,000.00.chanrobles virtual law library
The Financial Management
Office of the OCA is ORDERED and AUTHORIZED to deduct the
aforementioned
amount of P20,000.00 from the retirement benefits of Judge Marciano C.
Mauricio.chanrobles virtual law library
Clerk of Court Rosita
L. Bagan, Clerk of Court of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of
Palayan
City, is hereby REPRIMANDED and warned that a repetition of the same
infractions
in the future would be dealt with more severely.cralaw:red
The Office of the Court
Administrator is ORDERED to investigate Judge Octavio A. Fernandez and
his involvement in the anomalous collection of an additional cash bond
in People of the Philippines v. Florentino Marcelo, docketed as
Criminal
Case No. 505, originally pending before the Municipal Trial Court in
Cities
of Palayan City.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman),
Vitug, Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, p. 1.
[2]
Rollo, p. 46.
[3]
Rollo, p. 47.
[4]
Rollo, p. 15.
[5]
Rollo, p. 16.chanrobles virtual law library
[6]
TSN, 8 May 2000, p. 3.
[7]
Rollo, p. 57.chanrobles virtual law library
[8]
Rollo, p. 58.
[9]
A.M. No. MTJ-01-1354, 4 April 2001.
[10]
Agulan v. Fernandez, A.M. No. MTJ-01-1354, 4 April 2001, 356 SCRA 162,
citing Daag v. Serrano, 204 Phil. 9 (1982).
[11]
Relova v. Rosales, A.M. No. RTJ-02-1711, 26 November 2002.chanrobles virtual law library
[12]
Rollo, pp. 38, 48.chanrobles virtual law library
[13]
Agulan v. Fernandez, supra, citing Cabilao v. Sardido, 316 Phil. 134
(1995)
and Marcelino v. Singson, Jr., 313 Phil. 619 (1995).
[14]
Agulan v. Fernandez, supra, citing Sandoval v. Manalo, 329 Phil. 416
(1996).chanrobles virtual law library
[15]
Agulan v. Fernandez, supra.chanrobles virtual law library
[16]
As amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC.chanrobles virtual law library
[17]
Guray v. Bautista, A.M. No. MTJ-99-1188, 2 July 2001, 360 SCRA 489,
citing
Contreras v. Solis, 329 Phil. 376 (1996).
[18]
Bautista v. Mendoza, A.M. No. P-01-1489, 9 August 2001, 362 SCRA 397,
citing
Ramirez v. Racho, 329 Phil. 1 (1996).
[19]
Agulan v. Fernandez, supra.chanrobles virtual law library |