FIRST DIVISION
JUDGE ELIEZER R.
DE LOS SANTOS,
Complainant,
A.M.
No.
MTJ-03-1496
July 10, 2003
-versus-
JUDGE MARVIN B.
MANGINO,
Respondent.
R E S O L U
T I O N
DAVIDE,
JR., C.J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
This administrative matter
refers to the Order dated 8 July 1998[1]
of then Judge Eliezer R. de los Santos[*]
of the Regional Trial Court of Angeles City, Branch 59, relative to
Criminal
Cases Nos. 93-100 and 101 entitled "People of the Philippines v.
Jennifer
Santos," which were pending in said court.
On 10 July 1998, Judge
Eliezer R. de los Santos furnished the Office of the Court
Administrator
with a copy of his 8 July 1998 Order "for whatever action it may
deem appropriate concerning the actuation of Judge Mangino of the
Municipal
Trial Court of Tarlac in approving the bail bond of an accused arrested
in Angeles City and residing in Angeles City and the cases being
pending
also in Angeles City."chanrobles virtual law library
In his 8 July 1998 Order,
Judge Eliezer R. de los Santos narrated:
The records show that
these cases pending before this Court were filed since last February,
1993.
Both the accused and the complainant are residing in Angeles City. The
accused was arrested in Angeles City and the bail bond for the
provisional
liberty of the accused was issued by the Angeles City office of the
Imperial
Insurance Company. According to the accused, she paid P3,000 as premium
to the Imperial Insurance Company thru a certain Mr. Antonio Tolentino.
However, instead of having the said bail bond be approved by this
Court,
the said bail bond was approved by Judge Marvin Mangino of Branch I of
the Municipal Trial Court of Tarlac. The order of release was also
issued
by the said Judge Mangino. According to the accused, she never went to
Tarlac and appeared before said Judge Mangino. She also alleged that
she
never went to Makati City and appeared before the Notary Public Melchor
Ancanan.cralaw:red
From the contents of
the said bond No. 27367 issued by the Imperial Insurance Company, it
was
made to appear that accused Jennifer Santos appeared before Notary
Public
Melchor Ancanan in Makati City on June 23, 1998.cralaw:red
In the same Order, Judge
Eliezer R. de los Santos required Julieta M. Bautista, Clerk of Court
I,
Branch 1, Municipal Trial Court, Tarlac, to appear before his court on
24 July 1998 at 8:30 a.m. to explain and shed light on the
circumstances
behind the issuance and approval of bail bond No. 27367 by Judge Marvin
B. Mangino of Branch 1 of the Municipal Trial Court of Tarlac,
Tarlac.
He also ordered Mr. Roberto Cabuay, Executive Vice-President and
General
Manager of the Imperial Insurance Company and notary public Melchor
Ancanan
to explain in writing or in person why they should not be held liable
for
making it appear that accused Jennifer Santos appeared before notary
public
Ancanan in Makati City on 23 June 1998.cralaw:red
In her written compliance[2]
dated and filed on 23 July 1998, Clerk of Court Julieta M. Bautista of
the Municipal Trial Court of Tarlac explained:
Regarding the bailbond
posted by the accused JENNIFER SANTOS in Crim. Cases Nos. 93-100 and
101
of that Court, at the time the bondsman Imperial Insurance Co. who
[sic]
has a branch office at Tarlac, Tarlac, presented the same for approval,
he [sic] was with a woman who appears [sic] to be the accused and
believing
the bond to be legal with all its attached documents, the same was
approved
by Hon. Marvin B. Mangino of this Court.chanrobles virtual law library
For its part, on 18
August 1998, the Office of the Court Administrator referred to Judge
Marvin
B. Mangino for Comment within ten (10) days from receipt thereof the 8
July 1998 Order of Judge de los Santos.[3]
On 2 September 1998,
Judge Marvin B. Mangino submitted his Comment[4]
wherein he stated that he "initially adopts" the explanation of Clerk
of
Court Julieta M. Bautista on the incident, and requested for a
photocopy
of the order and the bond subject of the case so that he could
intelligently
make a comment thereon. However, he did not file any supplemental
comment or press his request for a photocopy of the order and of the
bond.cralaw:red
On 10 April 2002, this
Court resolved to require the parties to manifest within ten (10) days
from notice whether they were willing to submit the case for resolution
on the basis of the pleadings already filed.[5]
On 14 May 2002, Judge
Marvin B. Mangino submitted his manifestation expressing his
willingness
"to submit for resolution the above-entitled case based on the
pleadings
filed therein."[6]
Since complainant Judge de los Santos did not submit any manifestation,
the Court, in its Resolution of 19 February 2003 directed that the
Resolution
of 10 April 2002 be served on him at his office at the Court of
Appeals.
On 27 March 2003, the Court received his Manifestation[7]
dated 24 March 2002, expressing his willingness to submit this matter
for
resolution on the basis of the pleadings already filed.cralaw:red
In its Evaluation Report,
the Office of the Court Administrator stated:
Section 17 (a), Rule
114 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that -chanrobles virtual law library
Bail in the amount fixed
may be filed with the Court where the case is pending, or, in the
absence
or unavailability of the judge thereof, with another branch of the same
court within the province, city or municipality other than where the
case
is pending, bail may be filed also with any regional trial court of
said
place, or, if no judge there is available, with any metropolitan judge,
municipal trial judge or municipal circuit trial judge therein.cralaw:red
Thus, bail may be filed
with the same court where the case is pending. In the absence or
unavailability of the judge thereof, it may [sic] filed with another
branch
of the same court within the province or city. If the accused is
arrested in a province, city or municipality other than where the case
is pending, bail may be filed also with any regional trial court of
said
place, or, if no judge there is available, with any metropolitan judge,
municipal trial judge or municipal circuit trial judge therein.
In the instant case,
the accused Jennifer Santos was not arrested. That being the
case,
she should have filed her bail bond with the court where her case was
pending,
i.e., the Regional Trial Court of Angeles City. In the absence of
the judge thereof, it could be done at another branch of the same court
within the province of Pampanga or City of Angeles. Instead,
accused
Jennifer Santos filed her bond in the Municipal Trial Court of Tarlac,
respondent Judge Marvin B. Mangino, presiding, who approved the same
and
ordered his [sic] release from custody. Res ipsa loquitor.
Respondent Judge’s act is clearly irregular and is in violation of the
rules on the matter.cralaw:red
and recommended, as
follows:
… that respondent Judge
Marvin B. Mangino of the Municipal Trial Court of Tarlac, Branch I, be
DECLARED guilty of misconduct for non-observance of Section 17(a), Rule
114 of the Revised Rules of Court, a less serious offense under Section
4, Rule 140, supra, for which he should be ordered to pay a FINE of
P5,000.cralaw:red
As regards Section 17
(a), Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, cited by the Court Administrator,
this Court held in Cruz v. Yaneza:[8]chanrobles virtual law library
The foregoing provision
anticipates two (2) situations. First, the accused is arrested in
the same province, city or municipality where his case is
pending.
Second, the accused is arrested in the province, city or municipality
other
than where his case is pending. In the first situation, the
accused
may file bail in the court where his case is pending or, in the absence
or unavailability of the judge thereof, with another branch of the same
court within the province or city. In the second situation, the
accused
has two (2) options. First, he may file bail in the court where
his
case is pending or, second, he may file bail with any regional trial
court
in the province, city or municipality where he was arrested. When
no regional trial court judge is available, he may file bail with any
metropolitan
trial judge, municipal trial judge or municipal circuit trial judge
therein.cralaw:red
The case at bar falls
under the first situation mentioned in Cruz v. Yaneza because the
accused,
Jennifer Santos, was arrested in Angeles City and Criminal Cases Nos.
93-100
and 101, which were filed against her and under which she was arrested,
were pending with Branch 59 of the Regional Trial Court of Angeles
City.
Thus, the bail bond for Jennifer Santos’ provisional liberty should
have
been filed in said court, or, in the absence or unavailability of the
judge
thereof, with another branch of the same court within the province or
city.cralaw:red
A mere cursory glance
of the bail bond application would readily inform Judge Marvin B.
Mangino
that the criminal cases in question were pending with Branch 59 of the
Regional Trial Court of Angeles City. He also knew, or ought to
know,
that there are many branches of the Regional Trial Court in Angeles
City
and in the province of Pampanga. Thus, even if the Presiding
Judge
of Branch 59 was absent or unavailable, any one of the judges of the
other
branches of the Regional Trial Court in Angeles City could have acted
on
the bail bond. Judge Marvin B. Mangino also knew that his court
is
not of the same level as Branch 59 of the Regional Trial Court of
Angeles
City. Therefore, he knew, or ought to know, that he had
absolutely
no authority or jurisdiction to approve the bail bond of accused
Jennifer
Santos. Clearly, Judge Marvin B. Mangino blatantly disregarded
Section
17(a), Rule 114 of the Rules of Court.chanrobles virtual law library
Worse, it would further
appear that Judge Marvin B. Mangino did not even try to verify the
authenticity
of the bail bond. It appears that the bail bond was notarized in
Makati City, although the bonding company has a branch office in
Tarlac,
Tarlac. He should have inquired why it was notarized in Makati
City.
It is obvious that he solely relied on the clerk of court and approved
the bail bond on the basis of the "findings" of the clerk of
court.
He admitted this dereliction of duty to make an independent assessment
of the bail bond application when he adopted as part of his Comment the
compliance of his clerk of court.cralaw:red
It is thus patent that
Judge Marvin B. Mangino failed to exert such conscientiousness,
studiousness,
and thoroughness expected and demanded of a judge. He was,
therefore,
remiss in observing the conduct expected of a member of the judiciary.[9]
A judge’s conduct should
be above reproach, and in the discharge of his judicial duties he
should
be conscientious, studious, thorough, courteous, patient, punctual,
just,
impartial.[10]
As an advocate of justice and a visible representation of the law, he
is
expected to keep abreast with and be proficient in the application and
interpretation of the law. When the law is sufficiently basic, a
judge owes it to his office to simply apply it; anything less than that
would be gross ignorance of the law.cralaw:red
Further, a judge should
exhibit more than a cursory acquaintance with the basic legal norms and
precepts as well as with statutes and procedural rules. It is his
pressing responsibility to be diligently acquainted with the law and
jurisprudence
and the changes therein not only because the study thereof is a
never-ending
and ceaseless process but also for the reason that ignorance of the
law,
which everyone is bound to know, excuses no one, not even judges.[11]
Having accepted his exalted position as a member of the judiciary,
Judge
Marvin B. Mangino owes it to the public and to the court over which he
presides to maintain professional competence at all times and to have
the
basic rules at the palm of his hands.[12]chanrobles virtual law library
Judge Marvin B. Mangino
failed to live up to these standards. Not only did he approve the
bail bond of the accused without the requisite authority to do so, his
manner of doing so showed a flagrant disregard for the applicable
procedural
law he had sworn to uphold and serve. Unfamiliarity with the
Rules
of Court is a sign of incompetence which goes against Canon 3,
specifically
Rule 3.01, of the Code of Judicial Conduct.[13]
To disregard the law when one has become familiar with it is worse
because
bad faith comes in.cralaw:red
This palpable disregard
of the procedural law on bail or gross ignorance thereof, which also
amounted
to conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service,
renders
Judge Marvin B. Mangino administratively liable as recommended by the
Office
of the Court Administrator. Under the doctrine of res ipsa
loquitur,
the Court may impose its authority upon erring judges whose actuations,
on their face, would show gross incompetence, ignorance of the law or
misconduct.[14]
A brief survey on the
existing jurisprudence on the matter reveals that for similar conduct,
less severe penalties were imposed. In Paz v. Tiong,[15]
this Court imposed upon the respondent judge of the Municipal Trial
Court
of Bolinao, Pangasinan, a fine of P3,000 for signing the bail bond and
the order of release of an accused whose case was pending before the
Regional
Trial Court of Alaminos, Pangasinan, absent any showing that the
judge presiding over the same was unavailable. In Adapon v.
Domagtoy,[16]
this Court fined the respondent judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial
Court
of Santa Monica-Burgos, Surigao del Norte, in the amount of P10,000 for
ordering the release of an accused whose cases were pending before the
Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Dapa, Surigao del Norte,
notwithstanding
the fact, that the accused was neither arrested nor did he surrender to
the authorities before the order of release was issued and that the
judge
having jurisdiction over the cases was not shown to be
unavailable.
In the more recent case of Panganiban v. Cupin-Tesorero,[17]
this Court imposed the penalty of fine in the amount of P20,000 on
respondent
Municipal Circuit Trial Court judge of Silang-Amadeo, Cavite who
granted
bail and ordered the release of the accused whose case was pending with
the Regional Trial Court of Cavite by relying on the representations
made
by the process server of the latter court that the presiding judge
therein
was absent.chanrobles virtual law library
Under the factual milieu
in this case, respondent Judge Marvin B. Mangino deserves a penalty
higher
than a fine of P5,000 recommended by the Office of the Court
Administrator.
A fine of P15,000 is in order in light of the ruling of this Court in
Panganiban
v. Cupin-Tesorero.cralaw:red
It is rather a sad commentary
to make that this is not the first time that a complaint involving
irregular
approval of bail bond and issuance of order of release was brought
before
this Court.[18]
Some judges refuse to learn from the lessons of previous rulings of
this
Court. Indeed, some are difficult to reform. This Court
takes
this opportunity to once again remind the judges of lower courts of
their
role as the embodiment of competence, integrity and independence.[19]
They should always keep in mind that in order to achieve justice, they
should diligently ascertain and conscientiously apply the law in
relation
to the facts of each case they hear and then decide the same, unswayed
by partisan interests, public opinion or fear of criticism. The
pursuit
of excellence must be their guiding principle. This is the least
that judges can do to sustain the trust and confidence which the public
reposed on them and the institution they represent.[20]
WHEREFORE, respondent
Judge Marvin B. Mangino of the Municipal Trial Court of Tarlac, Tarlac,
Branch 1, is hereby found GUILTY of grave misconduct, gross ignorance
of
the law and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and
is hereby FINED in the amount of Fifteen Thousand (P15,000) Pesos, with
a warning that a repetition of the same or commission of similar acts
in
the future will be dealt with more severely.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Vitug, Ynares-Santiago,
Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, 4.
[*]
Now an Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals.
[2]
Rollo, 11.chanrobles virtual law library
[3]
Rollo, 6.
[4]
Id., 10.
[5]
Id., 13.
[6]
Id., 14.
[7]
Id., 17.chanrobles virtual law library
[8]
363 Phil. 629, 639 (1999).chanrobles virtual law library
[9]
See Paz v. Tiong, 323 Phil. 430 (1996).chanrobles virtual law library
[10]
Paragraph 31, Code of Judicial Ethics.
[11]
See De Guzman v. Sison, A.M. No. RTJ-01-1629, 26 March 2001.chanrobles virtual law library
[12]
See Panganiban v. Cupin-Tesorero, A.M. No. MTJ-02-1454, 27 August 2002,
citing Santiago v. Jovellanos, A.M. No. MTJ-00-1289, 1 August 2000.
[13]
Santiago v. Jovellanos, supra note 12, citing Northcastle Properties
&
Estate Corporation v. Paas, A.M. No. MTJ-99-1206, 22 October 1999.
[14]
Makalintal v. Teh, 345 Phil. 871, 876 (1997)chanrobles virtual law library
.
[15]
Supra note 9.chanrobles virtual law library
[16]
333 Phil. 696 (1996).chanrobles virtual law library
[17]
A.M. No. MTJ-02-1454, 27 August 2002. See also Manonggiring v. Ibrahim,
A.M. No. RTJ-01-1663, 15 November 2002 where we imposed the penalty of
fine in the amount of P20,000 against respondent judge for granting
bail
to an accused charged with a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua to
death in a case pending before another sala.
[18]
See cases cited herein; see also Santiago v. Jovellanos, supra note 12.
[19]
Rule 1.01, Canon 1, Code of Judicial Conduct.
[20]
Supra note 16. |