EN BANC
ADRIANO V. ALBIOR,
Complainant,
A.M.
No.
P-01-1472
June 26, 2003
-versus-
DONATO A. AUGUIS,
CLERK OF COURT II,4TH
MUNICIPAL
CIRCUIT
TRIAL COURT (MCTC),
TALIBON-GETAFE,
BOHOL,
Respondent.
R E S O L U
T I O N
PER
CURIAM:
Respondent Donato Auguis,
Clerk of Court II of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Branch 4,
Talibon-Getafe,[1]
Talibon, Bohol, is charged by Adriano Albior, of usurpation of judicial
function and negligence in the performance of official duties.
According
to complainant, respondent usurped judicial functions when he issued
the
order for the detention of one Edilberto Albior, the son of
complainant.
Further, complainant alleged that respondent committed negligence when
he failed to inform Acting Presiding Judge Avelino N. Puracan of that
court
regarding the filing of cases that necessitated issuance of the
detention
order.
The antecedent facts
of this administrative matter are as follows:chanrobles virtual law library
On January 25, 1999,
two complaints for rape[2]
were filed against Edilberto Albior before the MCTC, Branch 4 in
Talibon-Getafe,
Talibon, Bohol. As clerk of court of the said court, respondent Auguis
received and filed the complaints which were docketed as Criminal Case
Nos. 9144 and 9145. The following day, respondent issued a detention
order[3]
to the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP) in San Jose,
Talibon,
Bohol, for the commitment of the accused Edilberto Albior. On January
27,
1999, the BJMP duly issued a receipt of detainee[4]
for the person of the accused.cralaw:red
According to complainant,
said order was issued without a prior preliminary investigation and
without
a warrant of arrest. Neither was there any record in the Police Blotter
of the accused’s apprehension, or of his surrender. Nor was there proof
that he signed a waiver for his detention. What’s more, the respondent
failed to inform Acting Municipal Judge Avelino Puracan regarding the
filing
of the complaints for rape before his sala.[5]
On February 23, 1999,
counsel for the accused then filed an urgent motion to release the
accused.[6]
Two days later, respondent issued a subpoena, directing the accused to
submit counter-affidavits for the preliminary investigation of the
charges
of rape. But no further action was taken by the court. Accused through
counsel filed a second motion[7]
on March 1, 1999. Again, the motion was not acted upon.cralaw:red
Having no other recourse
to regain his liberty, the accused filed a petition for habeas corpus
on
March 15, 1999, with the Regional Trial Court of Bohol, Branch 52.
During
the habeas corpus proceedings,[8]
the respondent testified that this was not the first time he issued a
detention
order without a warrant of arrest. He testified that he has done this
action
"many times already"[9]
in the past, upon the request of the Chief of Police of the Philippine
National Police in Talibon. He reasoned out that it was in the best
interest
of the detainees to be transferred from the PNP jail to the BJMP
because
the former did not have meal provisions for detainees.cralaw:red
After due hearing, the
RTC Judge Zeta V. Villamayor issued an order[10]
on March 25, 1999, finding that the accused was being illegally
restrained
of his liberty and ordering his immediate release from confinement. On
the same day, the MCTC conducted a preliminary examination of the
prosecution’s
witnesses and issued an Omnibus Order[11]
confirming the arrest of the accused.chanrobles virtual law library
On April 12, 1999, counsel
for the accused filed a motion for reinvestigation[12]
with the Department of Justice, assailing the validity of the Omnibus
Order.
He maintained that no warrant of arrest was ever issued against his
client
and as such, no confirmation of such arrest may be undertaken.cralaw:red
On June 2, 1999, the
father of the accused, herein complainant Adriano Albior, filed a
letter-complaint[13]
with the Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas. Complainant charged
respondent
of usurpation of judicial functions and negligence in the performance
of
duties, in connection with the detention of his son, Edilberto Albior.cralaw:red
In a resolution dated
June 3, 1999,[14]
the Deputy Ombudsman referred the letter-complaint to the Office of the
Court Administrator (OCA) for appropriate action. On May 8, 2000, the
Ombudsman
issued a resolution[15]
dismissing the criminal complaint for usurpation of judicial function
as
defined under Article 241 of the Revised Penal Code.[16]
However, he recommended the filing of an information with the proper
court
for violation of Section 3 (e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act.[17]
Acting on the letter-complaint,
the OCA required respondent to file a comment to the complaint.
Respondent
filed his counter-affidavit.[18]
Respondent claims that he issued the detention order only after the PNP
Chief and PNP Trial Officer of Talibon repeatedly requested him to do
so.
The respondent asserts that it was out of honest conviction that he was
only helping the accused and his relatives. He was merely sparing them
the trouble of having to bring meals to the accused, as the municipal
jail
where the latter was detained did not serve food to its prisoners.cralaw:red
Respondent also appended
the affidavit[19]
of Police Senior Inspector Lecarion P. Torrefiel, the PNP Chief of
Police
of Talibon. In it the Police Chief stated that he personally requested
the respondent to immediately issue a detention order in order to
transfer
the accused to the BJMP jail, where he is ensured of three square meals
a day. The Chief explained that the municipality did not have a budget
for meals of detainees at the PNP jail, hence, it is alleged that
respondent’s
action was intended purely for humanitarian reasons. Nothing is said,
however,
why the local government unit allows this inhumane practice. The Chief
of Police himself appears blissfully ignorant of the human rights
aspects
of the matter for which his command could be held accountable.cralaw:red
On January 29, 2001,
the OCA issued its report.[20]
It found respondent’s defense unconvincing and held him
administratively
liable for issuing the said detention order prior to a preliminary
investigation
conducted by a judge and before a warrant of arrest was issued against
the accused. It recommended that the case be re-docketed as an
administrative
matter and that a fine in the amount of P3,000.00 be imposed upon
respondent
with a warning that the commission of the same or similar act in the
future
shall be dealt with more severely.chanrobles virtual law library
We then required the
parties to manifest if they were willing to submit the case for
decision
on the basis of the pleadings filed.[21]
The respondent subsequently manifested his conformity.[22]
The main issue for our
resolution is whether the respondent should be held administratively
liable
for the issuance of a detention order resulting in the actual detention
of the accused under the abovementioned circumstances.cralaw:red
The OCA report stresses
that respondent clerk of court is not empowered to issue the questioned
detention order. The duties of a clerk of court in the absence of the
judge
are defined under Section 5, Rule 136 of the Rules of Court:
SEC. 5. Duties of the
clerk in the absence or by direction of the judge. - In the absence of
the judge, the clerk may perform all the duties of the judge in
receiving
applications, petitions, inventories, reports, and the issuance of all
orders and notices that follow as a matter of course under these rules,
and may also, when directed so to do by the judge, receive the accounts
of executors, administrators, guardians, trustees, and receivers, and
all
evidence relating to them, or to the settlement of the estates of
deceased
persons, or to guardianships, trusteeships, or receiverships, and
forthwith
transmit such reports, accounts, and evidence to the judge, together
with
his findings in relation to the same, if the judge shall direct him to
make findings and include the same in his report.cralaw:red
Indeed nowhere in the
Rules is the clerk of court authorized to issue an order of detention,
as such function is purely judicial. In fact, we already had occasion
to
rule that a clerk of court, unlike a judicial authority, has no power
to
order the commitment of a person charged with a penal offense.[23]
The Deputy Ombudsman
for the Visayas aptly pointed out that where a judge is not available,
the arresting officer is duty-bound to release a detained person, if
the
maximum hours for detention provided under Article 125 of the Revised
Penal
Code had already expired. Failure to cause the release may result in an
offense under the Code, to wit:
ART. 125. Delay in the
delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities. - The
penalties provided in the next preceding articles shall be imposed upon
the public officer or employee who shall detain any person for some
legal
ground and shall fail to deliver such person to the proper judicial
authorities
within the period of: twelve (12) hours, for crimes or offenses
punishable
by light penalties, or their equivalent; eighteen (18) hours, for
crimes
or offenses punishable by correctional penalties, or their equivalent;
and thirty-six (36) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by
afflictive
or capital penalties, or their equivalent.chanrobles virtual law library
Respondent might have
been motivated by a sincere desire to help the accused and his
relatives.
But as an officer of the court, he should be aware that by issuing such
detention order, he trampled upon a fundamental human right of the
accused.
Because of the unauthorized order issued by respondent, the accused
Edilberto
Albior was deprived of liberty without due process of law for a total
of
56 days, counted from his unlawful detention on January 27, 1999 until
the issuance of the appropriate order of commitment by the municipal
judge
on March 25, 1999.cralaw:red
Thus, the Court cannot
condone nor take lightly the serious violation committed by the
respondent.
Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution mandates:
No person shall be deprived
of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall any
person be denied the equal protection of the laws. (Underscoring ours.)
Once again, it bears
emphasizing that the behavior of everyone connected with an office
charged
with the dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the clerk
of lowest rank, should be circumscribed with a high degree of
responsibility.[24]
Their conduct at all times must not only be characterized by propriety
and decorum, but above all else must be in accordance with the
Constitution
and the law. A clerk of court, such as herein respondent, is a ranking
and essential officer in the judicial system. His office is the hub of
activities. He performs delicate administrative functions essential to
the prompt and proper administration of justice.[25]
Respondent needs no
reminder that as an important officer in the dispensation of justice,
one
of his primary duties is to uphold the fundamental law of the land. His
defense that he is not a lawyer or law graduate and so is excusably
ignorant
of the legal implications of his detention order, deserves scant
consideration.
Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith,
especially
a clerk of court who ought to know better than an ordinary layman.cralaw:red
This Court has assiduously
condemned any omission or act which tends to undermine the faith and
trust
of the people in the judiciary.[26]
The Court cannot countenance any act or omission on the part of all
those
involved in the administration of justice which would violate the norms
of public accountability and diminish or tend to diminish the faith of
the people in the judiciary.[27]chanrobles virtual law library
The respondent’s issuance
of the detention order not only deprived the accused of liberty, it
also
considerably diminished the people’s faith in the judiciary. For the
very
officer of the court on whom they depended to safeguard their human and
constitutional rights was also the one who violated these rights.
Respondent
should be mindful of his ineluctable duty, as a ranking officer in the
judicial system, to ensure that basic rights are protected.cralaw:red
In conclusion, we agree
with the findings of the OCA that respondent is liable as charged
administratively.
But we disagree with its recommendation that respondent be merely meted
out the penalty of a fine. We cannot treat lightly the actions of the
respondent
for he has admitted doing them repeatedly, in fact many times in the
past.
The implication of his action as an official of the court is not only
disturbing
but shocking, for it involves no less than a violation of the
constitutional
right to liberty. We hold that respondent’s unauthorized issuance of
the
detention order and his failure to inform the Presiding Judge about
said
order constitute not merely gross neglect of duty but outright grave
misconduct.cralaw:red
Misconduct is a violation
of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly
unlawful
behaviour as well as gross negligence by the public officer. To warrant
dismissal from the service, the misconduct must be serious, important,
weighty, momentous and not trifling. It must also have direct relation
to, and connected with the performance of official duties amounting
either
to maladministration or willful, intentional neglect or failure to
discharge
the duties of the office.[28]
Because of the order for the arrest of the accused and resultant
confinement
in police custody, the respondent unduly usurped the judicial
prerogative
of the judge, and such usurpation is equivalent to grave misconduct.[29]
In a previous case,
we found the respondent guilty of grave misconduct for issuing a
Release
Order without the knowledge and signature of the Presiding Judge
concerned.[30]
In another, we ruled that the respondent was guilty of grave misconduct
warranting dismissal from the service when he issued a warrant of
arrest
without any order coming from the court that caused the accused to be
illegally
confined for three (3) days.[31]
In both cases we held that though the respondents might have been moved
by compassion and might have acted in good faith, the respondent’s
actuations
could not be condoned, for the committed acts constituted a serious
infringement
of, and encroachment upon, judicial authority.chanrobles virtual law library
In our view, the present
case cannot be treated with leniency, especially in light of the fact
that
respondent herein admitted he issued detention orders countless times
in
the past. In accordance with precedents and Civil Service Commission
Memorandum
Circular No. 19, series of 1999,[32]
the appropriate penalty to be imposed on respondent is dismissal from
the
service.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, respondent
DONATO AUGUIS, Clerk of Court II, MCTC, Branch 4 at Talibon-Getafe,
Talibon,
Bohol, is hereby found administratively liable for issuing the assailed
detention order without lawful authority, as well as failing to inform
the Presiding Judge of that court regarding such order, thus committing
GRAVE MISCONDUCT in the discharge of official functions. He is hereby
DISMISSED
from the service, with FORFEITURE of all benefits and privileges,
except
earned leave credits if any, and with prejudice to reemployment in the
government including government owned and controlled corporations.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo,
Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago,
Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Carpio, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
Austria-Martinez, J.,
on official leave.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Sometimes spelled as "Getate" or "Jetafe" in other parts of the records.
[2]
Rollo,pp. 10-11.
[3]
Id.at 9.
[4]
Ibid.chanrobles virtual law library
[5]
Id. at 13.
[6]
Id. at 13-14.
[7]
Id. at 15-16.
[8]
Id. at 29-31.
[9]
See id. at 31.
[10]
Id. at 46-47.
[11]
Id. at 93.chanrobles virtual law library
[12]
Id. at 94-96.
[13]
Id. at 3-7.chanrobles virtual law library
[14]
Id. at 100-101.
[15]
Id. at 117-119.chanrobles virtual law library
[16]
ART. 241. Usurpation of judicial functions. - The penalty of arresto
mayor
in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period
shall
be imposed upon any officer of the executive branch of the Government
who
shall assume judicial powers or shall obstruct the execution of any
order
or decision rendered by any judge within his jurisdiction.
[17]
SEC. 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. - In addition to acts or
omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the
following
shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby
declared to be unlawful:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
xxxchanrobles virtual law library
(e)
Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or
giving
any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in
the discharge of his official, administrative or judicial functions
through
manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.
This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or
government
corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other
concessions.
xxxchanrobles virtual law library
[18]
Id. at 105-109.
[19]
Id. at 110.chanrobles virtual law library
[20]
Id. at 120-122.
[21]
Id. at 127-128.
[22]
Id. at 129.chanrobles virtual law library
[23]
Judge Vallarta v. Vda. de Batoon, A.M. No. P-99-1302, 28 February 2001,
353 SCRA 18, 22.
[24]
Lloveras v. Sanchez, A.M. No. P-93-817, 18 January 1994, 229 SCRA 302,
307.
[25]
Juntilla v. Branch COC Calleja, 330 Phil. 850, 855 (1996); Angeles v.
Bantug,
Adm. Matter No. P-89-295,29 May 1992, 209 SCRA 413, 422-423.
[26]
Alivia v. Nieto, 321 Phil. 419, 426 (1995).chanrobles virtual law library
[27]
Malbas v. Blanco, A.M. No. P-99-1350, 12 December 2001, p. 9 citing Sy
v. Academia, A.M. No. P-87-72, 3 July 1991, 198 SCRA 705, 717.
[28]
Almario v. Resus, A.M. No. P-94-1076, 22 November 1999, 318 SCRA 742,
748-749.
[29]
Escañan v. Monterola II, AM. No. P-99-1347, 6 February 2001, 351
SCRA 228, 231.
[30]
See Biag v. Gubatanga, A.M. No. P-99-1341, 22 November 1999, 318 SCRA
753,
758-759.
[31]
See Supra, note 29 at 236-237.chanrobles virtual law library
[32]
Section 52. Classification of Offenses. - Administrative offenses with
corresponding penalties are classified into grave, less grave or light,
depending on their gravity or depravity and effects on the government
service.chanrobles virtual law library
The
following are grave offenses with their corresponding penalties:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
3.
Grave misconduct:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtual law library
1st
offense - Dismissal xxx. |