FIRST DIVISION
CELESTINA B.
CORPUZ,
CLERK OF COURT,MUNICIPAL
TRIAL
COURT, URDANETA PANGASINAN,
Complainant,
A.M.
No.
MTJ-96-1106
June 17, 2003 -versus-
JUDGE ORLANDO ANA
F. SIAPNO, PRESIDING JUDGE,
MUNICIPAL TRIAL
COURT, URDANETA, PANGASINAN,
Respondent.
R E S O L U
T I O N
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J.:
Celestina B. Corpuz, Clerk
of Court of the Municipal Trial Court of Urdaneta, Pangasinan, filed an
affidavit-complaint[1]
against the respondent Orlando Ana F. Siapno, Presiding Judge of the
same
Court, charging him with violation of Administrative Circulars Nos.
3-92
and 17-94, Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Falsification, Conduct
Unbecoming of a Public Officer, Abuse of Authority, Delay in the
Administration
of Justice and Ignorance of the Law.chanrobles virtual law library
Complainant alleged
that immediately upon his assumption of office, respondent Judge
proposed
to her that they extort money from litigants; that respondent Judge
used
his chambers as his residence; that he failed to make the required
inventory
of cases; that he used his filing cabinet for storing personal
belongings
instead of case records; that he allowed his family to use a typewriter
issued by the Supreme Court; that he dismissed five criminal cases
against
his friend and drinking companion, Captain Josephus Javonillo; that he
falsified his Certificate of Service by stating therein that he
conducted
sessions everyday of the week when he was always absent on Thursdays
and
Fridays; that he intimidated three police officers who filed complaints
for grave slander against him; that he maligned complainant in the
presence
of the public; that he sent his court personnel on personal errands
such
as marketing chores and washing dishes; that he dismissed a rape case
despite
the interest of the Department of Social Welfare and Development in the
case since the victim was a minor; that he returned criminal cases for
barangay conciliation despite the presence of certificates to file
action
therein but entertained the countercharges despite the lack of said
certifications;
that he failed to resolve three criminal cases within the period
prescribed
by the Supreme Court; that he failed to award civil damages in Criminal
Cases Nos. 12527 and 13482; that he instigated persons to stage a
demonstration
against complainant; and that he ordered complainant to drop a case for
robbery filed by the latter’s niece.chanrobles virtual law library
Respondent filed his
Comment on April 7, 1997,[2]
wherein he vehemently denied the charges against him. More
specifically,
he averred that he sleeps in his houses in Dagupan City and Asingan;
that
the inventory of cases was done by Judith Tambo under his supervision;
that the filing cabinet in his court was not being used for kitchen
utensils
and personal belongings; that he owns three typewriters and a personal
computer in his house; that he does not have drinking sessions with
Captain
Javanillo; that he holds sessions only from Mondays to Wednesdays
because
the Public Prosecutor and PAO lawyer assigned to his branch are
available
only on those days; that the three policemen voluntarily withdrew the
cases
for grave slander against him; that his resolution dismissing the rape
cases were affirmed by the Provincial Prosecutor; that he referred
Criminal
Cases Nos. 16050, 16039 and 17001 to the barangay conciliation because
the validity of the certifications to file action was questioned by the
counsel; that all cases forwarded to his chambers are decided and
resolved
with dispatch; that he did not award civil damages in Criminal Cases
Nos.
12527 and 13482 because the prosecution did not present any evidence
therefor;
that he did not tell complainant and her niece to drop the robbery case.cralaw:red
The Court referred the
case to Executive Judge Luis M. Fontanilla of the Regional Trial Court
of Dagupan City, Branch 42, for investigation. The case was thereafter
referred to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation,
report
and recommendation. The OCA adopted Judge Fontanilla’s findings and
recommended
that all the charges against respondent Judge be dismissed, except that
for Ignorance of the Law for failure to award civil damages in Criminal
Cases Nos. 12527 and 13482, for which respondent Judge must be fined in
the amount of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00).cralaw:red
Pursuant to a Resolution
dated March 19, 2001,[3]
both parties manifested their willingness to have the case submitted
for
resolution on the basis of the records.[4]
We agree with the findings
and recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator.cralaw:red
The Investigating Judge
found that complainant failed to present substantial evidence to prove
her allegations that respondent proposed to her the extortion of
litigants;
that he used his chambers as his place of residence; that he used the
filing
cabinet for his kitchen utensils, that he devoted the typewriter issued
by this Court for use by his family; that he had drinking sprees with
Capt.
Javanillo; that he sent court personnel on unofficial errands; that the
dismissal of the rape charges were unjustified. Moreover, the
Investigating
Judge found that the charges that respondent Judge failed to hold
sessions
on Thursdays and Fridays are unfounded.chanrobles virtual law library
Anent the charge of
failure to conduct the docket inventories, a judge is not required to
personally
catalog the records of cases during the physical inventory. This can be
delegated to members of his staff who should regularly report to him.
Precisely,
this is what respondent did in this case when he instructed Judith
Tambo
to do the physical count of the case records.cralaw:red
Regarding the return
of Criminal Cases Nos. 16050, 16039 and 17001 to the Barangay Captain
in
spite of the issuance of a Certification to File Action, Investigating
Judge Fontanilla pointed out that respondent is presumed to have acted
in good faith because he was apparently motivated by the idea that the
charges and counter-charges could be settled before the barangay
captain.
It must be remembered that a judge enjoys the presumption of regularity
in the performance of his function no less than any other public
officer.[5]
The presumption of regularity of official duty may be rebutted by
affirmative
evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a duty.[6]
Every reasonable intendment will be made in support of the presumption
and in case of doubt as to an officer’s act being lawful or unlawful,
construction
should be made in favor of its lawfulness.[7]
Moreover, complainant
based the charges on the "nagging suspicion" that respondent was
influenced
by the fact that her brother was the private prosecutor in the cases
which
where filed with his court. As held by the Investigating Judge,
respondent
cannot be disciplined based on a "nagging suspicion."[8]
The dearth of evidence to substantiate this accusation justifies
respondent’s
absolution from the charge. Surely, we cannot allow ourselves to be a
medium
in destroying the reputation of any member of the bench by pronouncing
his guilt with alacrity on a mere accusation based on tenuous, if not
nonexistent,
evidentiary support. In administrative proceedings, the burden of proof
that respondent committed the act complained of rests on complainant.
Failing
in this, the complaint must be dismissed.[9]chanrobles virtual law library
As to respondent Judge’s
failure to award civil damages in Criminal Cases Nos. 12527 and 13482,
the records disclose that both accused in said cases pleaded guilty to
the charges against them and respondent Judge imposed fines
corresponding
to the damages alleged in the Informations therein. In Criminal Case
No.
12527, the Information alleged that the damages suffered amounted to
P38,800.00.[10]
Respondent Judge imposed on accused a fine of P33,900.00 representing
the
amount of repair on the damaged property.[11]
Similarly, in Criminal Case No. 13482, damage to property in the
amounts
of P34,700.00 and P15,000.00 were alleged in the Information.
Respondent
Judge meted out a fine of P49,700.00 representing the damages sustained
by the offended parties.cralaw:red
In justifying his omission
to award civil damages, respondent Judge alleges that the prosecution
did
not present any evidence regarding the civil aspect of the case.[12]This was error. Concomitant
with
his
rendition of a guilty verdict, respondent should likewise make a
finding
on the accused’s civil liability because it is basic that every person
criminally liable is also civilly liable.[13]
Furthermore, Article 2202 of the Civil Code provides that:
In crimes and quasi-delicts,
the defendant shall be liable for all damages which are the natural and
probable consequences of the act or omission complained of. It is not
necessary
that such damages may have been foreseen or could have reasonably been
foreseen by the defendant.cralaw:red
Under the Revised Rules
on Criminal Procedure, when a complaint or information is filed even
without
any allegation of damages and the intention to prove and claim them, it
is understood that the offended party has the right to prove and claim
for them, unless a waiver or reservation is made,[14]
or unless in the meantime, the offended party instituted a separate
civil
action.[15]
In such case, the civil liability arising from a crime may be
determined
in the criminal proceedings if the offended party does not waive to
have
it adjudged or does not reserve the right to institute a separate civil
action against the defendant.[16]
Accordingly, if there is no waiver or reservation of civil liability,
evidence
should be allowed to establish the extent of injuries suffered.[17]chanrobles virtual law library
The rule expressly imposes
upon the courts the duty of entering judgment with respect to the civil
liability arising from the offense, if no reservation has been made to
ventilate it in a separate action.[18]
Indeed, even in case of an acquittal, unless there is a clear showing
that
the act from which the civil liability might arise did not exist, the
judgment
shall make a finding on the civil liability of the accused in favor of
the offended party.[19]
Therefore, it was error for respondent not to have entered judgment
with
respect to the civil liability.[20]
It is also fundamental
that the imposition of the fine imposed in the criminal case is not for
the purpose of indemnifying the aggrieved party but for vindicating the
State for the offense committed by the wrongdoer.cralaw:red
[A]n offense causes
two classes of injuries-the first is the social injury produced by the
criminal act which is sought to be repaired thru the imposition of the
corresponding penalty, and the second is the personal injury caused to
the victim of the crime which injury is sought to be compensated thru
indemnity
which is civil in nature. Hence, when no civil action is expressly
instituted
it shall be impliedly instituted with the criminal action. That means
that
if two actions are joined in one as twins, each one complete with the
same
completeness as any of the two normal persons composing a twin. It
means
that the civil action may be tried and prosecuted, with all the
ancillary
processes provided by law.[21]
(Emphasis and italics supplied.)chanrobles virtual law library
The methods for indemnifying
the private complainant is provided for under the provisions on civil
liability
which, under Article 104 of the Revised Penal Code, includes:
restitution;[22]reparation for the damage
caused;[23]
and indemnification for consequential damages.[24]
Pursuant to these statutory provisions, it behooves respondent to
require
the production of evidence to make a finding on civil liability. This
is
especially so where the accused has pleaded guilty and has therefore
admitted
his liability.cralaw:red
When a judge displays
an utter unfamiliarity with the law and the rules, he erodes the
confidence
of the public in the courts. A judge owes the public and the court the
duty to be proficient in the law and is expected to keep abreast of
laws
and prevailing jurisprudence.[25]
Ignorance of the law by a judge can easily be the mainspring of
injustice.[26]
While we agree with
the recommendations for the dismissal of the charges against respondent
Judge except for Ignorance of the Law, we find the recommended amount
of
fine to be insufficient.chanrobles virtual law library
The records show that
this is not respondent’s first administrative case. He has been
administratively
sanctioned by the Court in the following cases:
(1)
Re: Absences of Judge Orlando A. Siapno,[27]
where respondent was suspended indefinitely on April 15, 1997;
(2) Lu
vs.
Siapno,[28]
an administrative complaint for gross incompetence, gross ignorance of
the law, gross misconduct and abdication of official function, where
respondent
judge was imposed a fine of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) and sternly
warned that the commission of the same or similar acts in the future
will
be dealt with more severely; and
(3)
Judge Alicia Gonzales-Decano v. Judge Orlando Ana F. Siapno,[29]
a case filed against respondent by Urdaneta RTC Executive Judge Decano
for his failure to decide several cases with in the required periods,
where
he was again fined Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) and sternly warned
that
a repetition of the same or similar acts would be severely dealt with.chanrobles virtual law library
Obviously, being
chastised
thrice has not reformed respondent judge. It seems that respondent has
remained undeterred in disregarding the law which he has pledged to
uphold
and the Code which he has promised to live by.[30]
He appears to be unfazed by the previous penalties and warnings he
received.[31]
Given the foregoing
circumstances, more stringent penalties than those recommended by the
Investigating
Judge is warranted in this case. The amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos
(P20,000.00)
is more commensurate for respondent Judge’s infraction in this case.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, in view of
all the foregoing, respondent Judge Orlando Ana F. Siapno is found
GUILTY
of Gross Ignorance of the Law and is FINED the amount of Twenty
Thousand
Pesos (P20,000.00). He is also STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the
same or similar offense in the future would be dealt with more severely.cralaw:red
All other charges filed
against respondent Judge are DISMISSED for lack of merit.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman),
Vitug, Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, Vol. 1, pp. 1-10.
[2]
Id., pp. 233-252.
[3]
Id., p. 299.
[4]
Id., pp. 301, 303.
[5]
People v. Belaro, 307 SCRA 591, 600 [1999]; see also Rule 131, Section
3(m) of the Rules of Court.
[6]
People v. De Guzman, 229 SCRA 795, 799 [1994].
[7]
Magsucang v. Judge Rolando V. Balgos, A.M. No. MTJ-02-1427, 27 February
2003, citing People v. De Guzman, supra.
[8]
Memorandum of the Court Administrator dated April 14, 1999, p. 17.
[9]
Atty. Melecio A. Cea v. Judge Orlando C. Paguio, A.M. No. MTJ-03-1479,
17 February 2003.
[10]
Rollo, Vol. 1, p .l30.chanrobles virtual law library
[11]
Id., p. 131.chanrobles virtual law library
[12]
Exhibit 3, p. 18.chanrobles virtual law library
[13]
Article 100, Revised Penal Code.chanrobles virtual law library
[14]
Francisco, R.J. Criminal Procedure, 3rd ed. (1996), p. 124, citing
People
v. Orosa, 83 Phil. 683 [1949] and People v. Coloma, 105 Phil.
1287
[1959].
[15]
Section 1, Rule 111, of the Revised Rules of Court, now Section 1, Rule
111 of 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.
[16]
Roa v. Dela Cruz, 107 Phil. 8. [1960].chanrobles virtual law library
[17]
People v. Celorico, 67 Phil. 185 [1939].chanrobles virtual law library
[18]
Francisco, R.J. Criminal Procedure, supra, p. 124.chanrobles virtual law library
[19]
Id., p. 134, citing Section 2, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Court,
now Section 2, paragraph 2, Rule 120 of the 2000 Revised Rules on
Criminal
Procedure.
[20]
Id., p. 125, citing Springer v. Odlin, 3 Phil. 344 [1904].chanrobles virtual law library
[21]
Francisco, R.J., Criminal Procedure, 3rd ed. (1996), p. 124.
[22]
Article 105, Revised Penal Code.chanrobles virtual law library
[23]
Article 106, Revised Penal Code.
[24]
Article 107, Revised Penal Code.chanrobles virtual law library
[25]
Oporto, Jr. v. Judge Eddie Monserate, A.M. No. MTJ-00-1255, 16 April
2001,
356 SCRA 443.
[26]
Mutilan v. Judge Santos B. Adiong, A.M. No. RTJ-00-1581, 2 July 2002,
citing
Espino, et al. v. Salubre, 352 SCRA 668 [2001].
[27]
A.M. No. 97-3-31-MTC.chanrobles virtual law library
[28]
335 SCRA 181 [2000].chanrobles virtual law library
[29]
353 SCRA 269 [2001].chanrobles virtual law library
[30]
Judge Pedro B. Cabatingan, Sr. (ret.) v. Judge Celso A. Arcueno, A.M.
No.
MTJ-00-1323,22 August 2002, citing Marcos-Manotoc v. Agcaoili, 330 SCRA
368 [2000].
[31]
Id.; Lu v. Siapno, supra; Gonzales-Decano v. Siapno, supra; Re:
Absences
of Judge Orlando A. Siapno, supra. |