ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.M. No. MTJ-00-1289. October 16, 2000]

JESUSA M. SANTIAGO vs. JUDGE EDUARDO JOVELLANOS, et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated OCT 16 2000.

A.M. No. MTJ-00-1289 (Jesusa M. Santiago vs. Judge Eduardo Jovellanos, et al.) and A.M. No. MTJ-00-1289 (Margarita Sanchez vs. Judge Eduardo Jovellanos.)

For resolution are the motions filed by respondents Judge Eduardo U. Jovellanos, presiding judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Alcala Bautista, Pangasinan, and Celestina Corpuz, clerk of court of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Urdaneta, Pangasinan, seeking reconsideration of the Decision rendered by this Court on August 1, 2000.

In the said Decision, this Court imposed a penalty of one year suspension upon respondent Judge Jovellanos for ordering the release of Violeta Madera, the accused in Criminal Case Nos. 6333-6336, 6360-6362 and 6663 before the MTC of San Ildefonso, Bulacan, and James H. Orallo, the accused in Criminal Case No. 3712 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Urdaneta, Pangasinan, despite the fact that they were detained and their cases were pending outside the jurisdiction of his court. This Court also considered that, in Criminal Case Nos. 6333-6336 and 6360-6362, records indicate that Madera was released without posting the required bail bond. Meanwhile, for being remiss in transmitting to the MTC of San lldefonso, Bulacan the records 'of Madera's bail bond in Criminal Case Nos. 6333-6336 and 6360-6362, this Court ordered the suspension of respondent Corpuz for a period of four months. Agreeing with the observations of the investigating judge, RTC Judge Modesto Juanson, this Court explained that respondent Corpuz failed to secure the necessary registry return card or at least a certification from the proper post office to prove her allegation that the records of Madera's bail bond were actually sent by registered mail to the MTC of San lldefonso, Bulacan, and that even in the absence of such registry return card or certification, said records would have reached the addressee if actually mailed. This circumstance led this Court to doubt whether respondent Corpuz actually sent the said records and, more importantly, whether Madera posted the required bail bond to secure her temporary liberty.

In praying for reconsideration of the penalty of suspension, respondent Judge Jovellanos points out that he is of advanced age, about to retire in one year and two months, and has been in the service of the judiciary for seventeen years. He likewise manifests that he is Concurrently a MCTC judge for the towns of Villasis and Sto. Tomas, Pangasinan and that his suspension will deprive the people of Bautista, Alcala, Sto. Tomas and Villasis of the services of a municipal judge at a time when there is a shortage thereof. Respondent Judge Jovellanos submits that, in the interest of public service and considering that his failure to follow the prescribed procedure for the release of detention prisoners did not cause damage to the complainants, he should merely be fined. He adds that since Judge Modesto Juanson at one time was merely fined P20,000.00 for doing allegedly immoral acts with a married woman, a similar penalty should be imposed upon him.

The grounds invoked by respondent Judge Jovellanos fail to convince this Court that the penalty of suspension merits reconsideration. This Court is not unmindful of his advanced age and state of health, and, in fact, considered these circumstances when it rejected the recommendation of the investigating judge and the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) that he be dismissed from the service. Even if his years of service in the judiciary and public interest are considered, they cannot serve to mitigate his liability. . It is worth stressing that more than merely failing to observe rules of procedure by ordering the release of Madera and Orallo although he had no jurisdiction therefor, respondent Judge Jovellanos was suspended for doing so without the required bail bond being posted in Criminal Case Nos. 6333-6336 and 6360-6362. The procedure adopted by him was not only a circumvention of rules established for the purpose of securing the appearance of the accused during the trial of the case but also one which was tainted with partiality and dishonesty. As exemplars of justice, judges must not only avoid partiality and impropriety but all appearances thereof.

In the case of respondent Corpuz, she prays that she be exonerated and the penalty of suspension imposed upon her be vacated, or in the alternative, that the case be re-opened so she could present evidence in her favor. Corpuz contends that the investigating judge, Judge Juanson, did not give her a day in court and that by denying her due process of law he acted with lack of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion. She alleges that after the complainant, Jesusa Santiago, testified on July 14, 1999, the investigating judge no longer scheduled a hearing that would afford her an opportunity to present her side.

However, the records of this case belie the contentions of respondent Corpuz. The Orders dated July 14, 16, and 19, 1999, ¹ Rollo for OCA I.P.I No. 96-21 6-MTJ, Vol. II, pp. 84, 86 and 87, respectively.the first two of which were made in open court, indicate that hearings were conducted on those dates and that notice as to the date and time of the next setting were made. The minutes of the hearings held on July 14 and 16, 1999 ² Id. at 80 and 85, respectively.even bear the signature of respondent Corpuz, which is proof of her knowledge of the subsequent hearings as well as her presence and participation therein. The Order dated July 28, 1999 also negates her allegation that she was not given an opportunity to present evidence. Said Order states that:

Likewise, Celestina Corpuz, when asked by the Court if she is presenting evidence in her behalf, she told the Court that she is adopting her Answer to the Complaint which shall constitute her evidence.

Thereafter, the parties submitted the case for resolution. ³ Id. at 104.

Thus, if respondent Corpuz was unable to adduce additional evidence in her favor, she has only herself to blame.

Even the very belated presentation by respondent Corpuz of a registry receipt dated May 23, 1996 ⁴ Annex "A-1" of the Motion for Reconsideration of Corpuz.and a certification ⁵ Annex "B" of the Motion for Reconsideration of Corpuz.from a postmaster of the Urdaneta Post Office, in support of her claim that the records of Madera's bail bond for Criminal Case Nos. 6333-6336 and 6360-6362 were transmitted to the MTC of San Ildefonso, Bulacan, are insufficient to exonerate her from liability.

First, the registry receipt merely evidences that on the date indicated, certain documents, if any, purporting to be the bail bond, order of release and warrant of arrest of Madera, were sent by registered mail to the MTC of San Ildefonso, Bulacan. Said registry receipt nonetheless fails to dispute the finding that for Criminal Case Nos. 6333-6336 and 6360-6362, Madera did not post the required bail bond. Respondent Corpuz fails to consider that the penalty of suspension was imposed on her principally because of her participation in allegedly sending a document that was non-existent.

It has also not escaped the attention of this Court that the original copy of the registry receipt submitted by respondent Corpuz remains part of an entire sheet, with seven other registry receipts covering other documents supposedly sent on May 23, 1996, all of which are still attached to one another. While as a matter of practice, these registry receipts are detached from one another and affixed to copies of the transmitted documents in the possession of the court, no such copies of Madera's bail bond, order of release and warrant of arrest were presented by respondent Corpuz. In fact, during the last four years that this matter has been pending, neither respondent Judge Jovellanos nor Corpuz presented a copy of the alleged bail bond.

Second, Corpuz's reliance on the certification dated August 25, 2000 of Ms. Adoralia I. Cachero, Postmaster IV of the Urdaneta Post Office is misplaced. Ms. Cachero's certification merely states that "Registered Letter No. 1427, alleged to have been posted in [Urdaneta City], sometime on May 23, 1996, addressed to the MTC-San lldefonso, Bulacan, has no more record in this Office because files/records for that was eaten by termites," ⁶ Ibid .and that "all registered letters received in this Office shall be forwarded immediately to the addressee." ⁷ Ibid.Said certification does not in any way support respondent Corpuz's assertion that she sent the records of Madera's bail bond to the MTC of San lldefonso, Bulacan.

WHEREFORE, the motions for reconsideration of respondents Judge Eduardo U. Jovellanos and Celestina Corpuz are hereby DENIED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE