Republic of the
Supreme
Court
EN BANC
|
OFFICE OF THE COURT
ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, - versus - JUDGE RICARDO P. LIWANAG of the
Municipal Trial Court in Cities, San Jose del Monte City, Bulacan; CLERK OF COURT J. ROGELIO T. MONTERO III and COURT INTERPRETER MA. CORAZON D. ESPAÑOLA, Respondents. |
|
A.M. NO. MTJ-02-1440 (Formerly
A.M. No. 02-6-150-MTCC) Present:
PANGANIBAN,
C.J.
PUNO,
QUISUMBING,
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
CARPIO,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CARPIO MORALES,
CALLEJO, SR.,
AZCUNA,
TINGA,
CHICO-NAZARIO, and
GARCIA, JJ. Promulgated: February 28, 2006 |
|
|
|
|
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
PER CURIAM:
This administrative complaint
stemmed from a report[1] dated
At the start of its
investigation, the audit team complained of the lack of cooperation on the part
of respondents Montero III and Española. After its investigation, the team reduced
its findings via its aforementioned
report of
In the same report, the team
detailed the shoddy record- keeping in MTCC-SJDM, as follows:
The team underwent a hard time in conducting the audit. The Court has not submitted the required monthly report and semestral inventory of cases since the year 2000 up to the present. There is no effective method of filing of cases. Pending cases are mixed with dismissed, decided and archived cases. There was no compliance with the required actual and physical inventory of cases every semester. The docket books are not updated.
The return of service of each and every case as well as the minutes of every order are not attached to or are nowhere to be found in the records. The exhibits are just placed at one corner of the room and are unprotected from the elements.
The Clerk of Court is not even aware of the status of the cases when asked by the team. He did not even bother to define the duties and responsibilities of his staff especially on matters of receiving pleadings or other papers. There was no designation of employees who will take charge of the criminal and civil cases.
At once, after going over the records of the available cases and considering the uncooperative or lackadaisical attitude of Clerk of Court Rogelio T. Montero III and the previous Officer-in-Charge, Ma. Corazon D. Española, Court Interpreter, the team got the impression that there is truth to the allegations of anomalies and irregularities in the court. In fact, Ms. Española even skipped reporting to office for almost two (2) weeks during the audit after she failed to answer the various questions concerning the status of cases.
The team also reported that
exhibits consisting of guns, ammunitions and gambling machines were missing
from the court files. Respondent Montero III, when asked during the audit to
account for the exhibits, failed to produce the following, to wit:
|
|
|
Criminal Case No. |
|
Exhibits |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. |
0393-01 0394-01 |
|
.22 cal. Magnum marked ROHM with six (6) live ammunitions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. |
0391-01 0392-01 |
|
.45 cal. Colt, SN 145313121, 1 magazine assembly with seven (7) live ammunitions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3. |
9395-99 |
|
.38 cal. paltik without serial number, three (3) live ammunitions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4. |
0548-00 |
|
.22 cal. magnum, SN 202550 with five (5) live ammunitions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5. |
8092-98 |
|
Four (4) video karera machines |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6. |
9466-99 |
|
Two (2) video karera machines |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7. |
1032-00 |
|
One (1) video karera machine |
Only after more than five (5)
days of insistent requests from the team did respondent Montero III partially
account for the missing exhibits when he produced the firearms and ammunitions
submitted and marked as exhibits in Criminal Cases Nos. 0391-01 to 0394-01.[2]
Likewise,
the audit team discovered that at least six (6) criminal cases were dismissed
by MTCC-SJDM based on alleged spurious documents, while cash bonds were
released to persons other than the accused. We quote from the same report:
There are various criminal cases which were dismissed by the court based on alleged “Pag-urong ng Habla” purportedly executed by the private complainant but comparison of the signature in the said documents with the “Sinumpaang Salaysay” executed before the police authorities readily shows that the signature in the “Pag-uurong” (sic) was forged. Likewise, there are discrepancies in the signatures of the accused appearing on “Cash Bailbond Undertaking” and those appearing on the vouchers for the release of the cash bond to the accused after the cases were dismissed. This indicates that the cash released after dismissal of the cases was pocketed by persons other than the accused.
Some of the said cases are the following:
|
Case No. |
Accused |
Nature |
|
|
|
|
|
1. 1024-00 |
Francis D.V. Junio |
Malicious Mischief |
|
2. 0456-00 |
Kudipolo Andrade |
Qualified Trespass to Dwelling |
|
3. 0506-01 |
Epifanio Artiaga |
PD 1602 |
|
4. 0616-01 |
Nilo Maala |
|
|
5. 0526-01 |
Lito Castro |
PD 1602 |
|
6. 0002-00 |
Rodel Aguirre |
PD 1602 |
It is submitted that the improprieties could not have possibly occurred without the direct knowledge and participation of some personnel of the court.
Based on its findings, the team
recommended that an extensive investigation be conducted against respondents
Judge Liwanag, Montero III and Española, and that pending investigation of the
charges against them, they all be placed under preventive suspension.
In a memorandum[3] dated
In a Resolution[4] dated July 17, 2002, the Court, thru
its Third Division, considered the report of the audit team, then docketed as Administrative Matter No. 02-6-150-MTCC,
as a regular administrative complaint against the respondents and placed all
three of them under preventive suspension, requiring them to submit their
COMMENT on the report of the audit team.
In the same resolution, the Court referred the complaint to Executive
Judge Oscar Herrera, Jr. of the
From Administrative Matter No. 02-6-150-MTCC, the report of the audit
team was redocketed as Administrative Matter No. MTJ-02-1440.[7]
Española submitted her comment
on September 30, 2002 while Judge Liwanag and Montero III submitted theirs on
October 8 and 10, 2002, respectively.[8]
In his letter-report dated
February 14, 2003, MTCC-SJDM’s acting clerk of court Rodelio Marcelo informed
Atty. Thelma C. Bahia of the Court Management Office, OCA, that after he had
conducted a docket inventory of cases involving violations of Presidential
Decree No. 1866[9],
he discovered that several exhibits were missing from the files of MTCC-SJDM.[10]
In its Resolution dated
In the memorandum she submitted
during the investigation conducted by Judge Agloro, respondent Española claimed
that she could not be held responsible for the poor court management in the
subject court. When respondent Montero III took a study leave from May 1, 2000
to September 30, 2000 to prepare for the bar examinations, Judge Liwanag
designated Española officer-in-charge
of MTCC-SJDM.[12]
Española explained that while she was the officer-in-charge
of MTCC-SJDM during the period that respondent Montero III was on
leave, the preparation of monthly
reports and the semestral inventory of cases were assigned by Judge Liwanag to
Mr. Marcelo. Española placed squarely the responsibility on MTCC-SJDM’s failure
to file the required reports on the shoulders of Mr. Marcelo.[13]
Also, respondent Española
justified her absence during the conduct of the judicial audit, explaining that
she had to file a leave of absence for four (4) days, from February 5-8, 2002,
to attend the hearing of an administrative case against her docketed as A.M.
OCA IPI No. 99-65-P entitled “Marquina
vs. Corazon Española” (sic)
scheduled on February 6, 2002 at the Office of the Executive Judge of the
Regional Trial Court of Malolos City, Bulacan. She allegedly reported for work
on February 11, 2002, only to file again a leave of absence for February 12-15,
2002 to look for a counsel who could represent her in the aforesaid
administrative case. [14]
Judge Agloro found untenable
respondent Española’s explanation for her absence during the audit, holding
that respondent Española took a leave of absence in order to avoid the
inquiries of the audit team. According to the investigating judge, Española
should have met with the audit team, even if just to inform it of her need to
go on leave to attend to the administrative case against her, and Española’s
failure to do so showed her lack of intent to cooperate with the audit team.
Judge Agloro gave little weight
to respondent Española’s excuse that the duty to submit the required monthly
reports and semestral inventory of cases rested not on her, but on Mr. Marcelo.
Judge Agloro noted that as the designated officer-in-charge
of MTCC-SJDM during the absence of respondent Montero III, it was Española’s
duty to file the required reports and docket inventories for MTCC-SJDM.
For
his defense, respondent Montero III maintained in the memorandum he submitted
during the investigation that had the audit team inquired from a certain
Cresencia Reyes, a clerk in MTCC-SJDM, it would have known that the monthly
reports until May, 2002 had already been submitted. As to the submission of the semestral
inventory of cases, respondent Montero III admitted the truth of the audit
team’s findings that he failed to submit the required inventory reports for
MTCC-SJDM for 2000-2002. [15]
Judge Agloro held that the
absence of an effort from respondent Montero III to show proof of compliance
with the reportorial requirements was an indication of said respondent’s
failure, amounting to serious misconduct, to perform his duties under the 2002
Revised Manual for Clerks of Court[16], to
wit:
2.2.4. REPORTS & REPORTING
a. Monthly report of cases
(1) xxx xxx xxx
(2) xxx xxx xxx
(3) The duplicate of the report should be kept on file by the concerned court and the triplicate is to be submitted to the Executive Judge for his appraisal and compilation. The original copy of the report, together with the lists of cases filed, raffled, disposed of, archived, transferred or re-raffled, or those with suspended proceedings per Administrative Circular No. 1-2001 dated 2 January 2001, must be filed with, or sent by registered mail to, the Supreme Court on or before the tenth (10th) calendar day of the succeeding month addressed to:
The Chief
Statistical Reports Division
Court Management Office
Office of the Court Administrator
Supreme Court of
the
xxx xxx xxx
b. Semestral inventory of cases
b.1 Rules
(1) All Presiding Judges of trial courts must, upon assumption of office, and every semester thereafter on June 30th and December 31st of every year conduct a physical inventory of their dockets for the purpose of determining the actual number of cases pending in their salas.
(2) An inventory shall be prepared to indicate the cases pending trial, the cases submitted for decision and the cases that have been archived.
(3) The Presiding Judge and the Clerk of Court shall initial the records or rollos of each case to indicate the date of actual inventory. The inventory shall include a list of cases submitted for decision, indicating the title and the case number and the date of filing of said case. An updated inventory is to be submitted to the Supreme Court every six (6) months thereafter.
Respondent Montero III insisted
he had already accounted for the exhibits in Criminal Case Nos. 0391-01 to
0394-01.[17] Regarding the .38 cal. paltik with three (3) live ammunitions (exhibits in Criminal Case
No. 9395-99) and the .22 cal. magnum with five (5) live ammunitions (exhibits
in Criminal Case No. 0548-00) which the audit team had reported as missing from
the court files, respondent Montero alleged that the said firearms and
ammunitions have been in the possession of respondent Judge Liwanag and the
latter had already returned them to the court.[18]
Regarding the seven (7) video
karera machines confiscated in Criminal Case Nos. 8092-98, 9466-99 and 1032-00,
respondent Montero III alleged that no video karera machines were turned over
to his possession.[19]
Judge
Agloro put little value to respondent Montero III’s return of the exhibits
earlier reported as missing by the audit team. The fact that Montero III failed
to produce the subject exhibits during the audit reflected his lack of fidelity
to his duty to safeguard the exhibits in his custody.
Judge Agloro recommended that a
separate investigation be conducted on the audit team’s allegations relative to
the questionable dismissal of various criminal cases in MTCC-SJDM and the
irregularities attending the release of cash bail bonds.[20]
Anent
the letter-report dated February 14, 2003 submitted by the acting clerk of
court Rodelio Marcelo, which is a docket inventory of PD No. 1866 cases filed
in MTCC-SJDM from 1996 (the year when Montero III was appointed as clerk of
court) up to August 5, 2002 (the date Montero III received his order of
suspension), Judge Agloro doubted the veracity of the said letter-report considering
that Mr. Marcelo failed to appear
despite notice for him to testify on the contents of thereof.[21]
Judge
Liwanag never appeared during the investigation to present his side, which
prompted Judge Agloro to defer judgment on the allegation that Judge Liwanag
had improperly dismissed several cases before his sala. Nonetheless, Judge
Agloro held Judge Liwanag accountable
for appropriating the firearms used as evidence in Criminal Case Nos. 0393-01,
0394-01, 0391-01 and 0392-01 and for his
co-respondents’ failure to submit the monthly reports and the semestral
inventory of cases of MTCC-SJDM.[22]
After
conducting the investigation, Judge Agloro found the respondents liable for
various offenses and in his report[23] dated
1. Acting Clerk of Court Mr. Rodelio Marcelo be directed to return to his station at MTC-Angat, Bulacan;
2. The corresponding penalty be imposed to respondents Liwanag, Montero and Española for violation of Administrative Circular No. 61-2001 dated December 10, 2001 for serious misconduct towards the non-submission of the required monthly report and the semestral inventory of cases as found out (sic) by the audit team per its report dated June 13, 2002;
3. The corresponding penalty be imposed to respondent Liwanag for taking custody of the firearms used as evidence in Criminal Case Nos. 0393-01, 0394-01, 0391-01 and 0392-01; and the corresponding penalty be imposed to respondent Montero for his negligence in securing the missing exhibits as reported by the audit team per its report dated June 13, 2002;
4. Formation of a new audit team to conduct a comprehensive investigation regarding transactions relative to CASH BAILBOND UNDERTAKINGS at MTCC-San Jose del Monte City, Bulacan; and
5. An investigation be conducted solely for the purpose of determining whether respondent Liwanag gravely abused his discretion in dismissing cases/orders as reported by the audit team per its report dated June 13, 2002 and should be held liable therefor.
On
December 15, 2003, the Office of the Deputy Court Administrator received the
report of Judge Agloro.[24]
Time
and again, the Court has emphasized the heavy burden and responsibility which
court officials and employees are mandated to observe, in view of their exalted
position as keepers of the public faith. They are constantly reminded that any
impression of impropriety, misdeed or negligence in the performance of official
functions must be avoided. The Court
will never countenance any conduct, act or omission on the part of all those
involved in the administration of justice which would violate the norm of
public accountability and diminish the people’s faith in the judiciary.
Insofar as Judge Liwanag is
concerned, the instant administrative complaint has been rendered moot by this
Court’s per curiam decision[25] of
In its per curiam resolution of
WHEREFORE,
the instant motion for reconsideration is DENIED with finality, there being no
compelling reason to warrant a reconsideration of our Decision promulgated on
SO ORDERED.
What
is left to be determined then is the liability of respondents J. Rogelio Montero III and Ma. Corazon Española, clerk of court
and court interpreter, respectively, of the audited court.
The
Court finds respondent Rogelio T. Montero
III guilty of gross negligence
and grave misconduct. Under
subsection A(2) and (3) of Section 52 of Rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service,
gross neglect of duty and grave misconduct are considered grave
offenses punishable by dismissal from the service.
Montero
III was grossly negligent in his duties as clerk of court when he failed to
submit the required monthly reports of cases and semestral docket inventories
as required under the 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court.
According
to the memorandum submitted by the OCA dated
October 26, 2004, records from its Statistical Reports Division revealed
that the monthly reports of MTCC-SJDM for the months of January to March 2002 were
submitted only on May 15, 2002. [28]
The
OCA further reported that the semestral docket inventory of cases for the 1st
and 2nd semesters of 2001 were submitted only on November 4, 2002, while no docket inventories
were submitted for the 1st and 2nd semesters of 2002.[29]
Respondent Montero III’s grave
misconduct is demonstrated by his appalling failure to observe Section 7 of
Rule 136 of the Rules of Court which reads:
Sec. 7. Safekeeping of property — The clerk of court shall safely keep all records, papers, files, exhibits and public property committed to his charge, including the library of the court, and the seals and furniture belonging to his office.
Respondent Montero III betrayed
the trust reposed on him to safeguard the exhibits in his custody. He has no
right to remove the subject exhibits outside of the court’s premises; neither
can he allow others to appropriate the same.
Republic
Act No. 6713, otherwise known as the Code
of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees,
enunciates the State’s policy of promoting a high standard of ethics and utmost
responsibility in the public service. No
other office in the government service exacts from its occupant a greater
demand for moral righteousness and uprightness than in the judiciary. Hence,
everyone involved in the administration of justice, from the lowliest employee
to the highest official, ought to live up to the exacting standard of honesty,
integrity and uprightness.
Certainly,
respondent Montero is a misfit in the judiciary. He should not be allowed to stay in the
service a minute longer.
Respondent Ma. Corazon D. Española is
guilty of inefficiency and incompetence
in the performance of official duties.
Her contention that the non-submission of the monthly reports of cases
and semestral docket inventories for MTCC-SJDM should not be blamed on her is
unacceptable. From the time she assumed
the position of officer-in-charge of
MTCC-SJDM, it became her duty to ensure that MTCC-SJDM complied with its
reportorial requirements. The total
absence of any effort on her part to fulfill such duty illustrates her
inefficiency and utter lack of competence. Under subsection A(16) of Section 52 of Rule IV of
the Revised Uniform Rules on
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, respondent Española’s infraction
is considered a grave offense punishable by suspension of six (6) months and
one (1) day to one (1) year on the first offense.
After
conducting his investigation, Judge Agloro found no sufficient evidence to
allocate among the respondents the blame for the alleged anomalous release of
cash bail bonds. The need for further
investigation on this matter, as suggested by Judge Agloro in his report, is
already mooted by our imposition of the supreme penalty of dismissal on
respondents Judge Liwanag and Montero III.
As regards respondent Española, the Court feels that she should be
spared of another investigation on a matter which was within the scope of Judge
Agloro’s inquiry. Also mooted is the
recommendation of Judge Agloro to transfer Mr. Marcelo, acting clerk of court
of MTCC-SJDM. In its Resolution
dated
WHEREFORE, respondent J.
Rogelio T. Montero III is FOUND GUILTY of grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty and is hereby DISMISSED from the service with prejudice to re-employment in any
government agency and government-owned and controlled corporations and with
forfeiture of all retirement benefits except accrued leave credits.
Respondent
Ma. Corazon D. Española is FOUND GUILTY of inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties
and is hereby SUSPENDED for six (6)
months with a warning that repetition of the same or similar offense shall be
dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
|
REYNATO S.
PUNO Associate Justice
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice |
|
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice
|
ANGELINA
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate Justice
|
|
ANTONIO T.
CARPIO Associate Justice
|
MA. ALICIA
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate
Justice
|
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice |
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
|
ROMEO J.
CALLEJO, SR. Associate Justice
|
ADOLFO S.
AZCUNA Associate
Justice
|
|
DANTE O.
TINGA Associate Justice |
MINITA V.
CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 3-9.
[2] Consisting of cal. 45 pistol marked Colt with seven (7) live ammunitions and cal. 22 magnum revolver pistol marked Rohm with six (6) live ammunitions. See Rollo, pp. 4, 7.
[3] Rollo, pp. 1-8.
[4]
Rollo,
pp. 89-90. The relevant portion of the said Resolution reads:
“Administrative
Matter No. 02-6-150-MTCC (Report on the Judicial Audit in the Municipal Trial
Court in Cities, San Jose Del Monte City, Bulacan)- Considering the Court
Administrator’s memorandum dated June 14, 2002, the Court Resolved:
(a) to
REDOCKET the report of the team as a regular administrative complaint against
Judge Ricardo P. Liwanag, Clerk of Court Rogelio T. Montero III and Interpreter
Ma. Corazon D. Española;
(b) to
DIRECT Judge Ricardo Liwanag, Clerk of Court J. Rogelio Montero III and
Interpreter Ma. Corazon Española to COMMENT on the partial report of the team
within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days from notice;
(c) to
REFER after the receipt of their comments, this administrative matter to
Executive Judge Oscar C. Herrera, Jr., Regional Trial Court, Malolos, Bulacan,
for investigation, report and recommendation within ninety (90) days from
receipt of the records of the case;
(d) xxx
(e) to
DESIGNATE Mr. Rogelio F. Marcelo, Clerk of Court of Municipal Trial Court,
Angat, Bulacan, detailed at the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of San Jose del
Monte City, Bulacan as acting clerk of court thereat effective immediately and
to CONTINUE until further orders form this Court; xxx”
[5] Rollo, p. 89.
[6] Rollo, p. 599.
[7] Rollo, p. 104.
[8] Rollo, pp. 328-353, 354-398, 252-268.
[9] The law penalizes illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions.
[10] Rollo, p. 600.
[11] Paging of rollo of the instant case
has two cycles. The 1st cycle ends at rollo page no. 705, followed
by a memorandum from OCA dated
[12] Rollo, p. 226.
[13] Española Memorandum, pp. 3-4; Records, pp. 369-370.
[14] Agloro Report, p. 4; Rollo, p. 601; Española Memorandum, pp. 5-6; Rec., pp. 371-372.
[15] Rec., p. 396.
[16] Agloro Report, pp. 5-7, Rollo, pp. 602-604; see 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court, Vol. 1, pp. 416-417, 425-426, April 2002 printing.
[17] Consisting of cal. 45 (pistol) marked Colt with seven (7) live ammunitions and cal. 22 magnum revolver (pistol) marked Rohm with six (6) live ammunitions; see Montero memorandum, rec., p. 399; Audit Team Report, Rollo, p. 7.
[18] Agloro Report, pp. 7-8; Rollo, pp. 604-605.
[19] Agloro Report, p. 8; Rollo, p. 605.
[20] Agloro Report, pp. 9-10; Rollo, pp. 606-607.
[21] Agloro Report, p. 10; Rollo, p. 607.
[22] Rollo, pp. 604, 606.
[23] Rollo, pp. 607-608.
[24] Rollo, p. 597.
[25] 398 SCRA 541 (2003).
[26] 406 SCRA 300 (2003).
[27] SC Res.
[28] Memorandum of OCA dated
[29] OCA Memorandum, pp. 11-12.
[30] Resolution dated