FIRST DIVISION
OFFICE OF THE
COURT
ADMINISTRATOR,
Complainant,
A.M.
No.
MTJ-03-1511
August 20, 2004
-versus-
JUDGE OCTAVIO A.
FERNANDEZ,MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT
TRIAL COURT,GENERAL M.
NATIVIDAD-LLANERA,
Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
This case has its origin
in A.M. No. 99-6-81-MTCC,[1]
where the Court, in a Resolution dated June 3, 2003, directed among
others,
the Office of the Court Administrator to investigate Judge Octavio A.
Fernandez
on his involvement in the anomalous collection of an additional cash
bond
in “People of the Philippines v. Florentino Marcelo,” docketed as
Criminal
Cases Nos. 505-506, for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Serious
Physical
Injuries, originally pending before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities
of Palayan City.cralaw:red
Per judicial audit conducted
at the MTCC, Palayan City, formerly presided by Judge Marciano C.
Mauricio,
Sr., it was discovered that upon motion of the accused in Criminal
Cases
Nos. 505-506, the bail bond was reduced from P6,000.00 to
P2,000.00.
At 5:15 p.m. of July 2, 1996, accused Marcelo accompanied by a warrant
officer, went to the residence of Judge Mauricio for the purpose of
posting
bail but the latter had left for Manila. Hence, they went to see
respondent Judge Octavio A. Fernandez of the 2nd Municipal Circuit
Trial
Court of Gen. Natividad-Llanera, Nueva Ecija. Upon receipt of the cash
bond of P2,000.00, Judge Fernandez ordered the release of accused in an
Order which stated “that he is (sic) already deposited to this Court
the
required cash bond.”chanrobles virtual law library
It was only sometime
in March 1999 that a copy of the Order of Release dated July 2, 1996
was
received by Rosita L. Bagan, the Clerk of Court of the MTCC of Palayan
City. On March 23, 1999, she requested Judge Fernandez for the
receipt
of the cash bond and other pertinent papers related to the
above-mentioned
cases. Respondent judge replied that the original receipt of the
cash bond had been sent to the MTCC of Palayan City through Teresita
Esteban,
Clerk of Court II of the MCTC of Gen. Natividad-Llanera. However,
Clerk of Court Bagan allegedly has not received the said original
receipt
of the cash bond.cralaw:red
Respondent judge, by
way of defense, alleged that it was Judge Mauricio who received the
cash
bond; hence, the request of Clerk of Court Bagan should have been
directed
to Judge Mauricio.cralaw:red
The case was thereafter
referred to the Office of the Court Administrator, which found
respondent
judge guilty of grave misconduct in office and recommended that he be
fined
P20,000.00, with stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar
offense will be dealt with more severely.cralaw:red
During the pendency
of this proceeding, respondent judge optionally retired on January 2,
2004.cralaw:red
Cessation from office
of respondent judge because of death or retirement does not warrant the
dismissal of the administrative complaint filed against him while he
was
still in the service or render the said administrative case moot and
academic.[2]
The jurisdiction that was this Court’s at the time of the filing of the
administrative complaint was not lost by the mere fact that the
respondent
public official had ceased in office during the pendency of his case.[3]
Indeed, the retirement of a judge or any judicial officer from the
service
does not preclude the finding of any administrative liability to which
he shall still be answerable.[4]
The primordial question
to be resolved is who between Judge Mauricio and respondent Judge
Fernandez
actually received the cash bond of P2,000.00 from the accused in
Criminal
Cases Nos. 505-506.cralaw:red
It appears from the
records that it was respondent judge who actually received the
P2,000.00
cash bond. The Order in Criminal Case No. 505 dated July 2, 1996
states:chanrobles virtual law library
At 5:15 o’clock in the
afternoon this day, Florentino P. Marcelo who is the accused in
Criminal
Case No. 505 for Reckless Imprudence before the MTCC Palayan City, came
to this Court accompanied by a warrant officer of Palayan City alleging
that said accused went to the residence of Hon. Marciano C. Mauricio,
Sr.,
Presiding Judge of MTCC Palayan City for the purpose of posting his
cashbond.
The accused declared that Judge Mauricio left for Manila a few minutes
before the arrival of the accused and police officer. The said accused
requested the undersigned Presiding Judge to accept and receive the
amount
of P2,000.00 as cashbond.
WHEREFORE,
in fairness and in justice to the said accused and considering that he
is (sic) already deposited to this Court the required cashbond, it is
hereby
ordered the released (sic) from custody, unless he is detained for some
other cause or causes.chanrobles virtual law library
Let copy of this
order
be furnished the Presiding Judge of MTCC Palayan City.[5]
Respondent judge
violated
the provisions of Rule 114 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure by
receiving
the cash bond instead of directing the accused or any person acting in
his behalf to deposit the cash with the nearest collector of internal
revenue,
provincial, city or municipal treasurer. In Agulan, Jr. v.
Fernandez,[6]
it was held:
The rules specify the
persons with whom a cash bail bond may be deposited namely: the
collector
of internal revenue, or the provincial, city or municipal treasurer.
Section
14 of Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (effective
December
1, 2000) provides:
Section
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 of 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.
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.
However, we take exception
to the finding of OCA that respondent judge is guilty of gross
misconduct
in office.cralaw:red
In Yap v. Inopiquez,
Jr.,[7]
this Court explained the concept of gross misconduct, thus:
Misconduct is defined
as any unlawful conduct on the part of a person concerned in the
administration
of justice prejudicial to the rights of parties or to the right
determination
of the cause. It generally means wrongful, improper,
unlawful
conduct motivated by a premeditated, obstinate or intentional
purpose.
The term, however, does not necessarily imply corruption or criminal
intent.
On the other hand, the term “gross” connotes something “out of all
measure;
beyond allowance; not to be excused; flagrant; shameful.”chanrobles virtual law library
For administrative liability
to attach it must be established that the respondent was moved by bad
faith,
dishonesty, hatred or some other like motive. As defined —
Bad faith does not simply
connote bad judgment or negligence; it imputes a dishonest purpose or
some
moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong; a breach of a sworn
duty
through some motive or intent or ill-will; it partakes of the nature of
fraud. It contemplates a state of mind affirmatively operating with
furtive
design or some motive of self-interest or ill-will for ulterior
purposes.
Evident bad faith connotes a manifest deliberate intent on the part of
the accused to do wrong or cause damage. (Citations omitted.)
Indubitably, respondent
judge is guilty of simple misconduct for violating the rules on
bail.
There is no showing that such violation was moved by evident bad faith,
dishonesty or hatred so as to merit any sanction for serious
charges.
The records show that accused Marcelo deposited the cash bond with
respondent
judge at 5:15 in the afternoon, when the clerk of court have already
left
the office.chanrobles virtual law library
Section 9(4), Rule 140
of the Revised Rules of Court, as amended, classifies violations of the
Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars as less serious charges
punishable by any of the sanctions enumerated in Section 11(B) of the
same
Rule, viz.:
Section.
11.
Sanctions. -
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
B. If the
respondent
is guilty of a less serious charge, any of the following sanctions
shall
be imposed:
1. Suspension from
office
without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) nor more
than
three (3) months; or
2. A fine of more
than
P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00.
In view of the
foregoing,
the fine of P20,000.00 recommended by OCA is well-taken as the penalty
of suspension may no longer be imposed since respondent judge
optionally
retired on January 2, 2004.chanrobles virtual law library
In addition, respondent
judge is ordered to immediately remit to the MTCC of Palayan City the
sum
of P2,000.00 which he received as cash bond on Criminal Cases Nos.
505-506.chanrobles virtual law library
WHEREFORE, respondent
Judge Octavio A. Fernandez is found GUILTY of SIMPLE MISCONDUCT and is
FINED Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) which shall be deducted from
whatever
benefits may be due him. Further, he is ordered to REMIT to the
MTCC
of Palayan City the sum of P2,000.00 representing the amount of the
cash
bond paid by accused Florentino Marcelo in Criminal Cases Nos. 505-506.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman),
Quisumbing, Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the Municipal Trial Court in
Cities of Palayan City.chanrobles virtual law library
[2]
Mañozca v. Domagas, A.M. OCA-IPI No. 95-62-RTJ, 29 September
1995,
248 SCRA 625; Apiag v. Cantero, 335 Phil. 511 [1997]; Tuliao v. Ramos,
348 Phil. 404 [1998]; Secretary of Justice v. Marcos, Adm. Case No.
207-J,
22 April 1977, 76 SCRA 301; Sy Bang v. Mendez, 350 Phil. 524 [1998].chanrobles virtual law library
[3]
Flores v. Sumaljag, 353 Phil. 10 [1998].
[4]
Lilia v. Fanuñal, 423 Phil. 443 [2001].chanrobles virtual law library
[5]
Order dated July 2, 1996, People v. Florentino Marcelo, Criminal Case
No.
505.
[6]
A.M. No. MTJ-01-1354, 4 April 2001, 356 SCRA 162.chanrobles virtual law library
[7]
A.M. No. MTJ-02-1431, 9 May 2003, 403 SCRA 141, 151. |