THIRD DIVISION
[A.M. No. RTJ-98-1421. May 9,
2000]
MARIETTA A.
PADILLA, complainant, vs. JUDGE SALVADOR D. SILERIO, REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 14, LIGAO, ALBAY, respondent.
D E C I S I O N
VITUG, J.:
A complaint for grave misconduct and
dishonesty was filed by Marietta A. Padilla against Judge Salvador D. Silerio
of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 14, of Ligao, Albay, said to have been
committed by him while detailed at the Regional Trial Court, Branch 8, Legazpi
City, from August 1989 to August 1997.
In a criminal case for an alleged violation
of Batas Pambansa Blg. ("B.P.") 22, docketed Criminal Case No. 6623
and entitled "People of the Philippines versus Arlene Duran," lodged
before the sala of herein respondent judge, the accused Arlene Duran
posted a cash bond with the Clerk of Court in the amount of ONE THOUSAND PESOS
(P1,000.00), for which she was issued Official Receipt No. 3320162. On 19 April
1995, the case was dismissed and respondent judge, in his order of 31 May 1995,
directed the cancellation and release of the cash bond. In compliance with the
order, Attorney Jaime S. Narvaez, the Clerk of Court of the Legaspi City
Regional Trial Court, issued Disbursement Voucher No. 95-25 and upon its approval
by the Executive Judge, Land Bank (Legazpi Branch) Check No. 15244655 for ONE
THOUSAND PESOS (P1,000.00) was released by Attorney Narvaez in favor of
Attorney Ernesto Gianan, counsel for accused Arlene Duran, as so ordered.
In another criminal case for a similar
violation of B.P. 22, docketed Criminal Case No. 6644 and entitled "People
of the Philippines versus Mary Jane Prieto," again lodged in the sala of
respondent judge, accused Mary Jane Prieto posted a cash bond of ONE THOUSAND
PESOS (P1,000.00) approved by respondent judge in his order of 30 March 1994.
Accused Prieto was issued Official Receipt No. 3320162, bearing the same
official receipt number previously issued to Arlene Duran in Criminal Case No.
6623. Hence, when respondent judge subsequently dismissed the case against Mary
Jane Prieto and ordered the release of her bail bond on 16 August 1996 there
was none that could be released since the amount, per the court order of 31 May
1995 in Criminal Case No. 6623, appeared on record to have already been
disbursed.
Complainant additionally charged respondent
judge with having engaged in a daily drinking spree during office hours, as
early as 10:00 in the morning until 2:00 or 3:00 in the afternoon, within the
premises of the Hall of Justice in the presence of litigants and lawyers.
Respondent judge, according to complainant, would walk along the corridors of
the Hall of Justice and preside over trial even when drunk.
In his answer, respondent judge claimed to
have been unaware that the official receipt number recorded for Prieto's cash
bond was previously used in another case, and that the superimposition and
alterations appearing on the receipt were not apparent when the documents were
first submitted to him for approval of the bail bond. Finding the papers to be
regular and placing reliance on the undertakings signed by the accused and
subscribed to by her before the Branch Clerk of Court, respondent judge
scarcely found need to still verify the records. If at all, he said, his only
undoing was that he became "too trusting of his court staff."
Anent the charges of habitual drunkenness,
respondent admitted to being a social drinker but never in the company of
lawyers and litigants as so asseverated in the complaint.
Respondent judge attributed the filing of
the administrative complaint to the malicious and vindictive attempt on the
part of complainant Marietta Padilla, the court legal researcher, merely to
discredit him. The ill motive of complainant could be gleaned, he claimed, from
the fact that the complaint was filed not in 1994 when the alleged
"discrepancy" was said to have happened but at a time when he was
already set to retire.
Respondent optionally retired from the
service effective 31 December 1997. In the resolution of 17 March 1998, the
Court ordered the release of his optional retirement benefits except for the
amount of P50,00.00 which was withheld pending the outcome of the instant
administrative case.
In its report, dated 10 August 1998, the
Office of the Court Administrator ("OCA"), through Court
Administrator Alfredo Benipayo, made its evaluation; viz:
"Upon careful
analysis of the documents/evidence submitted by herein complainant as well as
the comment of respondent Judge, we find that there is dearth of evidence to
directly implicate respondent Judge to subject anomaly. We believe, however,
that respondent Judge should be made liable for carelessness and failure to
exercise the necessary diligence when he signed the Order approving the
spurious cash bond of accused Prieto.
"Signing of
Orders must not be taken lightly nor should it be considered as one of the
usual paperwork that simply passes through the hands of a judge for signature.
Respondent Judge should be made to account for his negligence and lack of
prudence which resulted in the anomaly now in question. In the case of Suroza
vs. Honrado (110 SCRA 388) the Court ruled that a judge would be inexcusably
negligent if he failed to observe in the performance of his duties that
diligence, prudence and circumspection which the law required in the rendition
of any public service. He cannot likewise exculpate himself, nor take refuge
behind the lame excuse that he relied on his staff who, as per alleged standard
operating procedure, are tasked to check compliance with the requirements for
the approval of cash bonds. His position demands that he maintains professional
competence and observe high standards of public service.
"Anent the
alleged 'daily drinking spree' of respondent, the same being unsubstantiated
cannot be given credence.
"Although
respondent judge has already retired during the pendency of this case, this
Court did not lose its disciplinary authority over him."[1]
OCA recommended that the case be so
re-docketed as an administrative matter and that respondent judge be made to
pay a fine of P20,000.00 deductible from the P50,000.00 withheld from his
retirement benefits for gross negligence.
In the Court resolution of 12 October 1998,
the parties were directed to manifest whether they would be willing to submit
the matter for resolution on the basis of the pleadings and documents on
record. In her Manifestation, dated 20 November 1998, complainant said that she
could not comply with the said resolution since she had yet to receive a copy
of the comment of respondent on the complaint. The latter, on the other hand,
averred in his manifestation of 10 May 1999 that he had since furnished
complainant with a copy of his comment and urged that his own allegations of
irregularities and anomalies committed by complainant while in office be
likewise looked into. He expressed his willingness to present further evidence
on his defense and counter charges if still required. In her letter, dated 23
September 1999, complainant manifested that she would "now rest and submit
the case for decision."
The Court agrees with OCA except for the
recommended fine which, considering the circumstances of the case, would appear
to be rather excessive.
In the discharge of the functions of his
office, a judge must strive to act in a manner that puts him and his conduct
above reproach and beyond suspicion. He must act with extreme care for his
office indeed is laden with a heavy burden of responsibility.[2] Certainly, a judge is enjoined, his heavy caseload
notwithstanding, to pore over all documents whereon he affixes his signature
and gives his official imprimatur. The cavalier attitude displayed by
respondent judge in this case simply cannot be countenanced.
Anent the charge of habitual drunkenness,
the Code of Judicial Ethics does mandate that the conduct of a judge must be
free from any whiff of impropriety not only with respect to the performance of
his judicial duties but also to his behavior outside his sala and even
as a private individual.[3] This charge against him, however, cannot be taken
into account for lack of credible substantiation.
WHEREFORE, respondent judge is found GUIlLTY of NEGLIGENCE and
imposed a fine of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00), deductible from his withheld
retirement benefits the balance of which may be released following the normal procedure
therefor.
SO ORDERED.
Melo, (Chairman), Panganiban, and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.
Purisima, J., abroad, no part.