THIRD DIVISION
DR.
JOHN M. W.
GRIEVE,
Complainant,
A.M.
No.
MTJ-01-1351
January 27, 2004 -versus-
JUDGE CORNELIO T.
JACA,
Respondent. R E S O L U T I O
N
CORONA,
J.:
Before us is a letter-complaint
filed by John M. W. Grieve charging Judge Cornelio T. Jaca of the
Municipal
Trial Court of Bantayan, Cebu with gross misconduct and violation of
Rule
3.08 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, in connection with Criminal Case
No. BSM 97-2301 entitled People vs. John Grieve wherein complainant was
accused of less serious physical injuries.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
By reason of said criminal
case, Judge Jaca issued a hold-departure order[1]
against complainant Grieve, prohibiting him from leaving the country
until
the case was terminated. According to Grieve, it caused him untold
embarrassment
and inconvenience which could have been avoided had respondent judge
been
aware that he had no authority to issue the order.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Complainant also prayed
for an investigation of an alleged falsification of certain documents
that
formed part of the records of the criminal case against him. He claimed
that the original affidavit on file with the trial court had been
replaced
by a different affidavit and a "Certificate to File Action" had also
been
inserted into the records.cralaw:red
In his comment dated
August 19, 1999,[2]
Judge Jaca admitted issuing a hold-departure order against Grieve,
arguing
that the issuance thereof was a matter of procedure to avoid delay in
the
proceedings of the case by ensuring his presence during the trial.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On the purported falsification
of documents, Judge Jaca denied any knowledge of or participation in
the
alleged substitution of affidavits. He claimed that he came to know
about
it only after the case was dismissed. Respondent’s claim was
corroborated
by the affidavits of Antonio Villacrusis, clerk of court of the MTC of
Bantayan, Cebu, who also denied any knowledge of the purported
replacement
of the original affidavit on file, and Evelino T. Gillera, court
interpreter
of the same municipal court.cralaw:red
In the agenda report
dated January 5, 2001, then Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo
submitted
the following findings:
FINDINGS: Respondent
Judge violated Circular No. 39-97 dated June 19, 1997 when he issued
the
hold departure order against the complainant.cralaw:red
The complainant was
charged with Less Serious Physical Injuries before the First Municipal
Circuit Trial Court in Bantayan, Cebu. Circular No. 39-97 mandates that
hold-departure order shall be issued in criminal cases within the
exclusive
jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts. Under the law, the penalty
for
the crime of Less Serious Physical Injuries is arresto mayor which is
within
the exclusive jurisdiction of the lower courts. Judges were furnished
copies
of the circular to avoid indiscriminate issuance of the hold departure
order.cralaw:red
The allegation of the
respondent that the issuance of the hold departure order is a matter of
procedure to continue trial exposes his ignorance of the existence of
the
circular.cralaw:red
To his COMMENT to the
letter-complaint, respondent attached two (2) informations for
Violation
of Section 5 (b), Article III, R.
A. 7610, as amended, filed with Branch 61, RTC, Bogo, Cebu against
the complainant. These two (2) informations has (sic) no
bearing
at all in the administrative complaint that was filed against
respondent
for issuing the hold departure order illegally. Apparently, the purpose
of the complainant in attaching to his comment the two (2) informations
for Violation of Section 5 (b), Article III, R.
A. 7610, as amended, instead of the information for Less Physical
Injuries
was to mislead the court. Trying to mislead the court is reprehensible,
to say the least.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The allegation of the
complainant that the original documents in the case file (sic)
in
the Office of the Clerk of Court were substituted with another
documents
was admitted by the respondent. He, however, stressed that he was not
aware
nor have (sic) knowledge of the substitution. The substitution
and/or
insertion of the Certificate to File Action and affidavits in the
records
of a case in the custody of the court is a very serious matter. The
Clerk
of Court, as custodian of court records, should be also made to
explain.
A formal investigation is necessary to ferret out the truth so that the
circumstances how the substitution was made, and the persons
responsible
therefore (sic) should be identified.[3]
Thus, the Court Administrator
recommended :
1. That the instant
case be RE-DOCKETED as an administrative matter and respondent Judge be
penalized to pay a FINE of P10,000.00, for ignorance of the law and
misconduct
for having issued the Hold Departure Order.cralaw:red
2 That the matter of
substitution/insertion of Certification to File Action and Affidavit in
the records in the custody of the court be REFERRED to Judge Ildefonso
Montilla, Presiding Judge of Branch 61, RTC, Bogo, Cebu for
investigation,
report and recommendation with a directive that the investigation be
not
limited to the Judge but also to include the Clerk of Court and other
personnel
of the court.[4]
In a resolution dated
February 19, 2001, this Court resolved to note the letter-complaint
against
Judge Jaca and refer the matter of substitution/insertion of affidavits
to Judge Ildefonso Montilla of the Regional Trial Court of Bogo, Cebu
for
investigation. In the same resolution, the clerk of court and other
personnel
in the sala of Judge Jaca were likewise ordered investigated. Judge
Montilla
was directed to submit a report and recommendation within 60 days from
receipt of the records. It turned out, however, that Judge Montilla had
already retired from the service. Thus, the Court issued another
resolution
dated September 3, 2001, referring the case to Acting Presiding Judge
Jesus
S. de la Peña for investigation, report and recommendation
within
90 days from receipt of the records.cralaw:red
In his report dated
April 29, 2002, Judge de la Peña made the following observations:
a) Judge Jaca merely
misinterpreted Memorandum Circular No. 39-97 as far as the issuance of
the hold departure order is concerned and while the issuance of such
order
brought some inconvenience on the part of complainant, the same was
rectified
when respondent judge set aside his previous order;
b) complainant’s allegation
that the original affidavit on file was replaced was unsubstantiated.
On
the contrary, the records of the criminal case against complainant were
all intact;
c) if there was a substitution/replacement
of the subject affidavit, respondent judge could have found complainant
guilty instead of dismissing the case.cralaw:red
Judge de la Peña
recommended that: (a) respondent Judge Jaca be simply warned that a
repetition
of the same or similar act of issuing a hold-departure order shall be
dealt
with more severely in the future and (b) that the clerk of court be
absolved
from liability for insufficiency of evidence.cralaw:red
This Court noted the
above-mentioned report in a resolution dated July 29, 2002. On the same
date, the Court issued another resolution referring the case to the
Office
of the Court Administrator for evaluation, report and recommendation
within
30 days from notice.cralaw:red
On September 19, 2002,
the Office of the Court Administrator, through Deputy Court
Administrator
Zenaida N. Elepaño, submitted a report finding no sufficient
evidence
to support complainant’s charge against Judge Jaca for falsifying and
replacing
the original affidavit and other documents on record. However, Judge
Jaca
was found to have violated Section 9, par. 4 of Rule 140 of the Rules
of
Court,[5]
which imposes upon the erring judge a penalty of fine of more than
P10,000
but not exceeding P20,000. The Deputy Court Administrator further
stated
in her report that this was the first infraction committed by
respondent
judge. She made the following recommendations:
1) respondent Judge
Cornelio T. Jaca, Acting Presiding Judge of the 1st MCTC, Bantayan-Sta.
Fe-Madredejos, Cebu, be penalized to pay a FINE of P5,000 for violation
of Circular No. 39-97; andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2) the charges of falsification
and replacement/insertion of affidavits and other documents on the
records
of Criminal Case No. BSM-97-2301 against the respondent judge be
DISMISSED
for insufficiency of evidence. The charge against the Clerk of Court
should
likewise be DISMISSED for insufficiency of evidence.[6]
A review of the records
shows that no evidence was presented during the investigation to prove
the alleged switching of affidavits and insertion of other documents in
the records of the criminal case. In fact, complainant failed to appear
during the investigation to substantiate his accusations. In the
absence
of proof, complainant’s bare assertions cannot overturn the presumption
of regularity in the performance of official duties by court officials
and personnel.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Anent the questioned
hold-departure order, Judge Jaca admitted that he issued the same to
ensure
that there would be no delay in the trial of the case. However,
Circular
No. 39-97, dated June 1997, limits the authority to issue
hold-departure
orders only in criminal cases within the jurisdiction of second level
courts
(Regional Trial Courts). Thus, as provided in the first paragraph of
the
said circular:
Hold-departure orders
shall be issued only in criminal cases within the exclusive
jurisdiction
of the regional trial courts.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Clearly, criminal cases
within the exclusive jurisdiction of first level courts, i.e., MeTCs,
MTCs
and MTCCs, do not fall within the ambit of the circular. It was
therefore
a mistake on the part of respondent judge to have issued one in the
instant
case. Indeed, it exposed his ignorance of the circular. The absence of
malice, bad faith or malicious intent on his part is not sufficient to
completely absolve him of liability.cralaw:red
It bears noting that
Circular No. 37-97 is not new. It took effect on October 1, 2001 and
several
cases involving violations thereof have been dealt with by this Court
before.
Evidently, respondent judge’s issuance of the hold-departure order
suggested
a failure to live up to the Code of Judicial Conduct which enjoins
judges
"to be faithful to the law and to maintain professional competence."
Only
by diligent and conscientious effort in keeping abreast with
developments
in our legal system can respondent judge live up to his duties.[7]
A judge owes it to the
public and to the legal profession to know the law he is supposed to
apply
in a given controversy. He is called upon to exhibit more than just a
perfunctory
understanding of statutes and procedural rules. Party litigants will
have
great faith in the administration of justice if judges cannot justly be
accused of apparent deficiency in their grasp of the legal principles.[8]
Service in the judiciary means continuous study and research on the law
from beginning to end.[9]
The study of law is a never ending and ceaseless process.[10]
Respondent judge therefore cannot be spared punishment for his
infraction.
Judges should at all times be vigilant in their quest for new
developments
in the law so they can perform their duties and functions with passion
and commitment, lest public confidence in the judiciary be eroded by
the
incompetent and irresponsible conduct of judges.[11]
Considering the evidence
and attendant circumstances in the instant case, respondent judge
regrettably
failed to comply with the required judicial standard.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, judgment
is hereby rendered:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1. finding respondent
Judge Cornelio T. Jaca, Acting Presiding Judge of the 1st MCTC,
Bantayan-
Sta. Fe Madredejos, Cebu, liable for violating Circular No. 39-97.
Accordingly,
he is ordered to pay a FINE of P10,000 as recommended by then Court
Administrator
Benipayo, with a WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts
shall be dealt with more severely;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2. DISMISSING the charges
of falsification and replacement/insertion of affidavits and other
documents
in the records of Criminal Case No. BSM-97-2301 against respondent
judge
and the clerk of court for insufficiency of evidence.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Vitug, J., (Chairman), Sandoval-Gutierrez,
and Carpio-Morales, JJ., concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, p. 4.
[2]
Rollo, p.10.
[3]Rollo, pp. 30-31.
[4]Rollo, p. 31.
[5]Violation of Supreme Court rules,
directives
and circulars; as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC dated September 11,
2001.
[6]Rollo, p. 96.
[7]Office of the Court Administrator
vs.
Judge
Alipio M. Aragon, A.M. No. 01-9-246-MCTC. October 9, 2000.
[8]Daplos vs. Arquiza, 99 SCRA 141
[1980];
Ramirez
vs. Macandog, 144 SCRA 462 [1986].
[9]Abad vs. Bleza, 145 SCRA [1986].
[10]
Hold Departure Order issued by Judge Eusebio M. Barot, 313 SCRA 44
[1999].
[11]Carpio vs. De Guzman, 262 SCRA 615
[1996]. |