THIRD DIVISION
JAIME
C. TARAN,
Complainant,
A.M.
No.
MTJ-02-1436
January 12, 2004
-versus-
JUDGE JOSE
S.
JACINTO,
JR.,
Respondent.
R
E S O L U
T I O N
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
J.:
In a Decision[1]
dated April 3, 2003, this Court found respondent Judge Jose S. Jacinto
guilty of culpable lapses in supervising court employees and issuing
orders
through the telephone, in violation of Supreme Court Circular No. 26-97
and Section 6, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Court; and imposed upon
him a fine of P11,000.00.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On May 12, 2003, respondent
filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied by this Court in a
Resolution
dated June 16, 2003.[2]
Undeterred, respondent
filed the present "Urgent Appeal," entreating this Court to grant him
utmost
compassion and understanding by relaxing the stringent application of
its
disciplinary rules. He implores this Court to consider his dedicated
service
in the Judiciary for the last sixteen (16) years. He claims that he
acted
in good faith; this is his first administrative transgression; and he
has
been devoted to his judicial duties. If the fine imposed upon him is
not
reduced, it will bar his promotion as RTC judge. He thus prays that the
fine of P11,000.00 imposed upon him be reduced to P5,000.00.cralaw:red
Respondent’s earnest
plea for understanding and compassion and his desire to be promoted as
RTC judge impel us to take a second hard look at his case.cralaw:red
In his "Urgent Appeal,"[3]
respondent alleged as follows:
"On the first issue
– violation of Supreme Court Circular No. 26-97 – this Honorable Court
ruled:
‘Here, the Clerk of
Court did not issue the receipt for the payment of the cash bond posted
by the accused. Instead, the original receipt was attached to the
records
of Criminal Case No. 2641. Respondent should have instructed the Clerk
of Court to comply with Circular No. 26-97 quoted above. As aptly
stated
by Court Administrator Velasco in his Report, ‘respondent judge can be
declared culpable for lapses in supervision of the court employees,
resulting
in non-compliance with the provision of Circular No. 26-97.’
"With due respect, I
have not committed any lapse in the supervision of the court employees
in MCTC Lubang-Looc, Occidental Mindoro. I have repeatedly emphasized
to
the court personnel not only in MCTC Lubang-Looc but also in MTC Sta.
Cruz,
Occidental Mindoro, to adhere strictly to all circulars, memoranda,
directives
and instructions coming from this Honorable Supreme Court. Despite such
reminders, however, still this thing happened. Of course, I do not wash
my hands off concerning these lapses. As I said in my motion for
reconsideration,
I accepted the verdict of this Honorable Court. However, in mitigation
of the fine meted on me in the amount of P11,000.00, which I
respectfully
submit is too high and is not in accord with the attendant
circumstances,
this Honorable Court ought to consider the following: (a) that
compliance
with the aforementioned Circular No. 26-97 is directed to both judges
and
clerks of court. More so, it should be the clerks of court who have the
primary responsibility to comply with said circular because they are
the
custodians of court funds and revenues; (b) that I was not remiss in
the
management of any court because of the repeated verbal reminders I
issued
to the court personnel to adhere strictly to circulars, memoranda,
instructions
and directives of this Honorable Court; (c) my Clerk of Court has
IMMEDIATELY
ISSUED the receipt for the payment of the cash bond posted by the
accused.
But the Clerk of Court was wrong and acted erroneously when instead of
issuing the receipt to the payor, the accused in Criminal Case No.
2641,
the receipt was attached to the records of the said case.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"On the second issue
– violation of Section I, Rule 36 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
– this Honorable Court ruled:
‘On the charge that
respondent issued orders by telephone, he should have known that
Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts are courts of record and that, therefore, their
proceedings
must be in writing. Also, he should have complied with Section 1, Rule
36 of the 1997 Rules of Procedure, as amended, x x x.’
"In all candor, I am
aware of the fact that Municipal Circuit Trial Court are court of
record
and that their proceedings must be in writing, and of Section 1, Rule
36
of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. With due respect, however, this
Honorable
Court should have considered the following mitigating circumstances as
to justify the imposition of a lighter fine, to wit:
‘a) Aside from my official
station at the Municipal Trial Court, Sta. Cruz, Occidental Mindoro, I
am also a Judge-designate of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of
Lubang-Looc,
Occident Mindoro. My schedule in Lubang-Looc is usually on the third
week
of every month. However, there are some instances when my schedule is
cancelled
due to the following reasons: demands of my caseloads in my official
station;
weather conditions; and unavailability of transportation from Mamburao,
Occidental Mindoro (my residence) to Batangas, then to Manila (Pier 6)
and finally to Lubang Island. In case my monthly Lubang schedule is
cancelled
and/or after my one (1) week stay in Lubang-Looc, Occidental Mindoro, I
have a standing instruction to my MCTC Clerk of Court in particular and
to all my court personnel in general that if there are pleadings or
motions
filed by the parties or counsels which require my immediate resolution
or action, I shall promptly and officially informed by means of ‘long
distance
call’ so I could act and dictate my order accordingly thru the same
communication
to avoid undue delay or injustice to the party/movant.cralaw:red
‘b) With this set-up,
I was able to deliver the mandated speedy disposition/administration of
justice and, in fact, resulted to resounding approbation by both party
litigants in Lubang-Looc, Occidental Mindoro, where there is a dearth
of
practicing lawyers.cralaw:red
‘c) I have continuously
applied the foregoing procedure with respect to urgent pending
incidents
only for almost five (5) years and there are no complaints whatsoever
from
party litigants for the said period except herein complainant who has
an
axe to grind against respondent considering the variety of charges
lodged
against me, but which, except for violation of Circular 26-97 and
issuing
orders by telephone, have been found unfounded and baseless by the
Honorable
Court Administrator and adopted by this Honorable Court.cralaw:red
‘d) I acted in utmost
faith in resorting to this procedure I have adopted in MCTC Lubang-Looc
and I have very good motives and intentions which is solely for the
speedy
disposition of urgent pleadings filed in my court especially the fact
that
Lubang-Looc is in a remote island.’chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x x x
"Aside from the foregoing
mitigating circumstances, there are other circumstances which could
also
mitigate my liability for the lapses which I committed: a) this is the
first time that I have been administratively charged before this
Honorable
Supreme Court; b) I have practically reduced my backlog in both MCTC of
Lubang-Looc and in the MTC, Sta. Cruz, both in Occidental Mindoro; c) I
was designated by this Honorable Supreme Court as the Acting Presiding
Judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Parañaque City, Branch
78, effective March 27, 2001 by virtue of Administrative Order No.
30-2001,
which is a reflection of my competence, honesty and dedication in the
performance
of my duties as a regular Judge of MTC Sta. Cruz and as Judge-designate
of Lubang-Looc, Occidental Mindoro.cralaw:red
"Considering the foregoing
mitigating circumstances, may I therefore, implore Your Honors to
reduce
the fine of P11,000.00 imposed upon me by this Honorable Court which
corresponds
to the penalty for the offense of less serious charge which carries a
fine
of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00"
x x x
While we are moved by
respondent judge’s plea for compassion, let it be stressed that neither
good faith nor long unblemished service in the judiciary can fully
justify
his administrative offenses.cralaw:red
At any rate, there are
counterweights which may be considered in determining whether the fine
of P11,000.00 imposed upon respondent may be reduced.cralaw:red
In Office of the Court
Administrator vs. Panganiban,[4]
we held:
"For there are present
in this case mitigating circumstances in her favor. First is the fact
that
this is respondent judge’s first offence. That this is a mitigating
circumstance
in her favor has been settled by our cases.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Second is her long
and exemplary service in the judiciary.cralaw:red
x x x
"Fourth is that after
having been administratively charged, respondent readily acknowledged
her
fault. x x x These additional extenuating circumstances x x x warrant
the
reduction of the recommended penalty from P100,000.00 to P12,000.00."
We scrutinized closely
respondent’s record and found no trace of wrongdoing on his part,
except
the instant administrative lapses. This is the first time that he has
been
administratively charged. He has rendered service in the judiciary for
the past sixteen (16) years. And he humbly acknowledged his
transgressions
and offered his most sincere apology.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Following our ruling
in Office of the Court Administrator vs. Panganiban cited above, we
hold
that the foregoing extenuating circumstances in his favor warrant the
reduction
of the fine imposed upon him from P11,000.00 to P5,000.00.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, respondent’s
motion for reconsideration is GRANTED. Our Decision dated April 3, 2003
is hereby MODIFIED in the sense that respondent Judge Jose S. Jacinto
is
FINED only in the sum of P5,000.00.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Vitug, J., (Chairman), Corona,
and Carpio-Morales, JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo at 122-131.
[2]
Id. at 141.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Id. at 142-149.
[4]
A.M. No. RTJ-96-1350, August 18, 1997, 277 SCRA 499, citing Report on
the
Judicial Audit and Physical Inventory of the Records of Cases in MTCC –
Br. 2, Batangas City, 248 SCRA 36 (1999); Re:Judge Fernando Agdamag,
254
SCRA 644, 650 (1996); Ben D. Marcos vs. Judge Paul C.Arcangel, A.M. No.
RTJ-91-712, July 9, 1996.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |