|
REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED
IN THE MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, GEN. M. NATIVIDAD-LLANERA, NUEVA ECIJA. |
A.M. No. 01-10-279-MCTC Present: PUNO,
C.J., Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago,
Sandoval-Gutierrez, CARPIO, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CARPIO MORALES, AZCUNA,
TINGA,
CHICO-NAZARIO, GARCIA,
velasco,
JR., NACHURA, and REYES,
JJ. Promulgated: |
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
On
On
On
a) Judge
Octavio A. Fernandez
1)
disregarded the rule on the deposit of money as bail (Sec.
14, Rule 114, Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure);
2) Misappropriated the cash bonds he directly received in Criminal Cases Nos. 2461-N (People v. Marthy Manliclic), No. 110-L (People v. Edgardo Balunes), No. 111-L (People v. Guiller Ferrer) and No. 135-L (People v. Rufino Casimiro) – all are MCTC, Gen. M. Natividad-Llanera cases, and Criminal Cases Nos. 505 and 506 (People v. Florentino Marcelo) – both MTCC, Palayan City cases; and
3)
Misappropriated the amount of P10,000.00 which
was intended as a settlement of the civil aspect of Criminal Case No. 2443-N (People v. Danilo Rivera); and
b) Judge Fernandez and
Clerk of Court Teresita S. Esteban misappropriated P65,000.00 from the P300,000.00 as full payment of
the civil aspect covering the face value of the two (2) checks subject of
Criminal Cases Nos. 2628-N and 2630-N (People
v. Mercedita Santos).
On
On
In his Report to the Court, Justice Atienza stated that respondent’s actuations constitute grave misconduct. He justified his conclusion based on the oral testimonies of the witnesses and the various documentary evidence attached to the records. He viewed the counter-affidavit of Judge Fernandez as hearsay but since the Rules on Evidence are not strictly followed in administrative proceedings, he nevertheless discussed it along with the other evidence adduced during the investigation. Hereunder are the findings of Justice Atienza, to wit:
x x x
As culled from the records of Criminal Cases Nos. 2461-N, 110-L, 111-L, 505 MTCC Palayan City, and 2443-N, respondent judge received the cash bail bond deposits of the accused and retained possession of the same in violation of Section 11, (Sec. 14 of the Revised Rules) Rule 114 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure x x x.
x x x
Respondent Judge also violated the law when he issued the orders of release of the accused who posted cash bonds without requiring the submission of a written undertaking showing compliance with Section 2 of Rule 114 x x x.
x x x
With respect to the
alleged misappropriation of the P65,000.00,
part of the P300,000.00 full settlement of the civil aspect of Criminal
Cases Nos. 2628 and 2630-N, it appears that two (2) counts of Violation of BP
22 were filed by Ricardo Santos in the MCTC, Gen. Natividad-Llanera, Nueva
Ecija against Mercedita Santos on P300,000.00 for delivery to
Ricardo Santos, in full settlement of the civil aspects of both cases. On P235,000.00 from the Clerk of Court and not the entire amount of P300,000.00
as full settlement for both cases. This
prompted Judge Mallare to issue an order dated October 27, 1999, stating, inter alia, that “upon inquiry made by
the court, said Clerk of Court manifested in open court that Judge Octavio
Fernandez took the Thirty Thousand (P30,000.00)
Pesos as attachment bond”. The
Clerk of Court did not say what happened to the remaining P35,000.00.
x x x
Judge Octavio A. Fernandez and Clerk of Court Teresita S. Esteban of MCTC Gen. Natividad-Llanera, Nueva Ecija did not live-up to the standards of conduct demanded of court employees. They failed to act according to the responsibilities attached to their respective offices. A Judge should so behave at all times to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary and the Clerk of Court must be honest and competent.
x x x
THE RECOMMENDATION OF
THIS OFFICE
This Office fully agrees
with the extensive investigation and report of Justice Atienza regarding the
administrative liability of Judge Fernandez and Clerk of Court Esteban. It is well taken but the penalty he
recommended against Judge Fernandez appears to be disproportionate to the
gravity of the offense. Respondent Judge
Fernandez has been previously fined in
the amount of P5,000.00 and sternly warned in A.M. No. MTJ-01-1354 dated
P30,000.00 fine and warning recommended by
Justice Atienza.
Respondent Judge
Fernandez undeniably kept or retained in his possession the cash bonds
submitted by the accused for their temporary liberty in the following criminal
cases:
|
Criminal
Case No. |
Amount of
Bail |
Date of
Payment |
|
1.
2461-N |
|
|
|
2.
110-L |
4,000.00 |
|
|
3.
111-L |
10,000.00 |
|
|
4.
505 |
2,000.00 |
|
|
5.
2443-N |
10,000.00 |
|
The pertinent provision
on this matter is SC Circular No. 13-92
dated
x x x x x x x x x
All collections from bail
bonds, rental deposits and other fiduciary collections shall be deposited immediately by the Clerk of Court concerned,
upon receipt thereof, with an authorized government deposit bank.
x
x x
As can be gleaned from
the above-cited provision, clerks of court, not judges, are the custodians of
all bail bonds, rental deposits and other fiduciary collections. Even in the ordinary course of proceedings,
judges have nothing to do with the collections because clerks of court are officers mandated to deposit them with an
authorized government depository bank.
To repeat, the clerks of court are the ones responsible for such matters
(Manual for Clerks of Court, pp. 123-128).
The proper procedure in
the handling of cash submitted or given to the municipal court as bail bond is
for the court to formally direct the clerk of court to officially receive the
cash and to immediately deposit it with the municipal treasurer’s office. The transaction must not only be properly receipted
but should also appear in the records of the case (Daag v. Serrano, 118 SCRA 381; Aguilar,
Jr. v. Judge Fernandez, A.M. No. MTJ-01-1354,
Even assuming for the
sake of argument that Judge Fernandez pocketed the P30,000.00, one
wonders why the three (3) checks (P10,000.00, P10,000.00 and P23,000.00,
respectively) issued by Clerk of Court Esteban in favor of the complainant
amounted to P43,000.00. There
was an over-payment of P8,000.00 since she has only to pay the balance
of P35,000.00. Be that as it may,
it is clear that Clerk of Court Esteban misappropriated the funds held in trust
by her – an act that needs to be condemned.
x x x
That “public office is a
public trust” cannot be imprudently undermined for it is constitutionally enshrined.
Public officers and employees are at all times accountable to the people; must
serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency, and
must lead modest lives (Section 1, Article XI, Philippine Constitution). The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for
Public Officials and Employees (R.A. No. 6713) additionally provides that every
public servant shall uphold public interest over his or her personal interest
at all times (Gano v. Leonen, 232
SCRA 98, May 3, 1994, citing Section 2 of Republic Act No. 6713). Court personnel, from the presiding judge to
the lowliest clerk, are further required to conduct themselves always beyond
reproach, circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility as to free them
from any suspicion that may taint the good image of the judiciary (Ibid., citing re: Josefina v. Palon, etc., 213 SCRA 219, September 2, 1992; Medilo v. Asodisen, 233 SCRA 68, June
13, 1994; Mendoza v. Tiongson, A.M.
No. P-90-454,
With these time-honored
principles and the substantiated findings of Justice Atienza, we are
constrained to conclude that the respondents are administratively guilty of gross
misconduct.
VII.
THE PENALTY
Since respondent Judge
Fernandez committed a serious offense, the appropriate penalty is found under Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court, which
provides:
Sec. 11. Sanctions. – A. If the respondent is
guilty of a serious charge, any of the following sanctions may be imposed:
1. Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all
or part of the benefits as the Court may determine, and disqualification from
reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned
or controlled corporation. Provided,
however, that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave
credits;
2. Suspension from office without salary and
other benefits for more than three (3) but not
exceeding six (6) months; or
3. A fine
of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00.
The gravity of the
offense merits a penalty of suspension for six (6) months as this is not the
first time that respondent judge committed the same offense.
VIII.
THE RECOMMENDATION
WHEREFORE, in the light
of the foregoing, the undersigned most respectfully submits to the Honorable
Court the recommendations that:
x x x
1. Judge Octavio A.
Fernandez be SUSPENDED for six
(6) months without pay;
2. Clerk of Court Teresita Esteban be FINED in the amount of Twenty Thousand
(P20,000.00) Pesos; and
3. Both be WARNED that
repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.
Records
of the Court show that on
It is
well settled that the Court does not lose its jurisdiction over an administrative
case by the mere fact that the respondent public official ceases to hold office
during the pendency of his case.[1] In Perez
v. Abiera,[2] we held:
In other words, the jurisdiction that was Ours at the time of the filing of the administrative complaint was not lost by the mere fact that the respondent public official had ceased to be in office during the pendency of his case. The Court retains its jurisdiction either to pronounce the respondent official innocent of the charges or declare him guilty thereof. A contrary rule would be fraught with injustices and pregnant with dreadful and dangerous implications. x x x If only for reasons of public policy, this Court must assert and maintain its jurisdiction over members of the judiciary and other officials under its supervision and control for acts performed in office which are inimical to the service and prejudicial to the interests of litigants and the general public. If innocent, respondent official merits vindication of his name and integrity as he leaves the government which he served well and faithfully; if guilty, he deserves to receive the corresponding censure and a penalty proper and imposable under the situation.
Thus,
even if respondent judge had retired from the service, he is still subject to
the jurisdiction of the Court considering that his infractions were committed
and investigated when he was still in the judiciary. In view of the gravity of his offense (grave
misconduct) and considering that this is the second time he has been charged
and convicted administratively, he should be meted a FINE of P40,000.00.[3]
Respondent
Clerk of Court Esteban, having misappropriated the funds held in trust by her
is found guilty of dishonesty, which is a grave offense punishable by dismissal
from the service even if committed for the first time.[4] This is not respondent Clerk of Court Esteban’s
first offense. In A.M. No. P-04-1886,[5]
she was found guilty of simple neglect of duty for mishandling the cash
bond posted by
the accused in Criminal Case No.
160-L of the MCTC of Gen. Natividad-Llanera, Nueva Ecija. She was suspended for one month and one day
without pay and warned that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall
be dealt with more severely.
ACCORDINGLY, Judge Octavio A. Fernandez,
retired, is declared guilty of gross misconduct and is ordered to pay a FINE
of P40,000.00 payable to this Court upon notice. The Court Administrator is directed to file
the corresponding criminal complaint with the Office of the Provincial
Prosecutor of Nueva Ecija, also upon notice.
For
having committed dishonesty, and having been previously convicted
administratively and warned of a more severe sanction, Clerk of Court Teresita S.
Esteban is DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of all benefits
except earned leave credits. She is BARRED
from reemployment in any branch or instrumentality in the government, including
government-owned and controlled corporations.
Let a copy
of this Decision be attached to respondents’ personal file with this Court.
SO ORDERED.
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
|
REYNATO S. PUNO Chief Justice |
|
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice (On Official Leave) ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate
Justice |
(On Official Leave) CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice CANCIO C. GARCIA Associate Justice ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
RUBEN T. REYES
Associate Justice
[1] Aquino
v. Miranda, A.M. No. P-01-1453,
[2] Adm. Case No. 223-J,
[3] Pursuant to Section 11(1), Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court earlier cited.
[4] Section 5 2(A)(1), Rule VI, Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service; How v. Ruiz, supra.
[5] Agulan,
Jr. v. Esteban,