EN BANC
RE: FINAL REPORT ON Adm. Matter No. 06-7-414-RTC
THE JUDICIAL AUDIT
CONDUCTED AT THE
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, Present:
BR. 67, PANIQUI, TARLAC.
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:
October
19, 2007
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
D E C I
S I O N
Tinga, J.:
This administrative matter arose from
the judicial audit and physical inventory of cases conducted on 20-24 June 2005
at the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Paniqui, Tarlac, Branch 67, then presided
by Judge Cesar M. Sotero who compulsorily retired on
As of audit date, the RTC had a total
caseload of 523 cases consisting of 309 criminal cases and 214 civil cases,
including 33 unaccounted LRC cases. The
Audit Team made the following observations:
In
the conduct of the audit, the Team used the case numbers in the Docket Books
from January 2003 up to [the] present as reference in the inventory of
cases. Entries in the docket books are
insufficient especially in the special proceedings cases which merely indicate
the title of the case and the date the case was filed and the word
“decided.”
During
the audit, it was observed by the Team that there was no special proceeding
case records presented. Upon inquiry,
Clerk of Court Paulino Saguyod averred that mostly [sic] of these cases
are for Petitions for Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry and mostly [sic]
are already decided and there are only few pending. Considering that the docket books have
insufficient entries, the Team Leader used as reference the case numbers filed
from January 2003 up to [the] present.
During the random sampling of records, the same cannot be produced as the
records were already bundled. x x x
COC
Saguyod gave the team four (4) [folder] copies of decisions in the special
proceedings cases. Initial findings reveal
that the date of filing indicated in the docket books and the date of decision
was so near that it will be highly improbable that the required publication
will be complied with. Hence, the Team
demanded for [sic] the production of 608 case records of special
proceeding[s] cases.
In
the copies of decisions presented, common in the second paragraph of the
pro-forma decisions, are statements that “finding the petition to be
sufficient in form and substance, the same was set for hearing on x x x. On said date and time, the petition was
announced in open court. Nobody
interposed any objection. Accordingly,
the counsel for petitioner presented documentary evidence to prove
jurisdictional facts ([Exh.]
“A” and series). Thereafter, he moved
and was allowed to adduce further evidence before the Clerk of Court and at [sic]
the presence of the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor who appeared in behalf of
the State.” However, during
the course of the audit it was observed by the Team that almost all of the petitions
are pro-forma and notarized by COC Saguyod as ex-officio notary public.
There are even unsigned, unverified and not notarized petitions granted
by the Court. Further, almost all of
them have no hearings conducted that it will be improbable if not possible that
the court orders be published in a newspaper of general circulation as required
by the Rules of Court. The docketing of
cases was not also in sequence as to its date of filing (Annex “A”).
Moreover,
there are eighty-six (86) petitions [where] the date of filing were simultaneous
or ahead of the date of [the] alleged hearing/decision (Annex “B”) and fifty-eight (58) petitions [were] found to
have either no [c]ourt action or no further action for a considerable length of
time (Annex “C”). Also, nine (9) petitions have similar docket
numbers and three (3) cases with the same docket number (Annex “D”) while one hundred seventy-nine (179) cases [sic]
records were not presented to the Team (Annex
“E”).
Further,
in the reconciliation of the Semestral Docket Inventory for the period
July-December 2004 of Land Registration Cases, thirty-three (33) case records
are unaccounted [for] x x x.
The
Team also observed that there is no Certificate of Arraignment attached to [the]
criminal case records. Minutes of the
Hearing have no summary of what transpired during the hearing of the case. Docket books for criminal and civil cases are
[sic] not updated. [The] [d]ocket book for special proceedings
cases merely indicated the title of the case and the date it was filed with [a]
notation “decided.” There is no docket
book shown for land registration cases.
Anent
Election Protest No. 001-04, the Court in its order dated P]500.00 per
ballot box (61 ballot boxes) as compensation for the revisors within five (5)
days from notice. There was no receipt
attached to the records of the case. COC Saguyod explained that the receipt was
with the protestant and that the same was not per official receipt and not
deposited to [sic] the Fiduciary
Account as the same will be paid to the revisors. He claimed that he will also render an
accounting of the expenses incurred at the end of the hearing.
Likewise
noted are the payments made in SP Nos. 1032 and 1033, both undocketed
petitions, [having] the same Official Receipts Numbers which when compared with
the original receipts[,] referred to other cases and/or transactions x x x.[1]
In view of its observation, the Audit
Team recommended in its Memorandum dated
(a)
why 375 petitions for change of name and/or
correction of entries in the civil registry were granted without the required
hearing and publication, in gross violation of the provisions of Rule 108 of
the Rules on Civil Procedure;
(b) why the
dates of filing of 86 other petitions were either the same as or ahead of the date of the
alleged hearing/decision;
(c) why 70
petitions had no court action after their filing or no further action/setting
for a considerable length of time after the last order/incident of the case;
(d) why
nine (9) petitions had similar docket numbers and three (3) other cases had the
same docket number; and
(e)
why the records of 179 special proceedings and those
of 33 land registration case were not presented to the Audit Team.[3]
It was
also recommended that Clerk of Court Saguyod be required to: (a) explain why
the initial deposit of P500.00 per ballot box for 61 ballot boxes made
by the protestant in Election Protest No. 001-04 pursuant to the order of 4
June 2004 was not remitted to the Fiduciary Fund Account; and (b) explain the
discrepancy in the official receipts representing the payment of filing fees
for Spec. Proc. Nos. 1028, 1029 and 1030 which appeared as payment for Spec.
Proc. Nos. 1032 and 1033.[4]
Judge
Sotero and Clerk of Court Saguyod jointly filed an Explanation dated
(a)
As to the petitions for correction of entry/ies
without hearing and publication —
Judge Sotero and Clerk of Court Saguyod
explained that almost all of these petitions may be covered by Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 9048[6] which
authorizes city or municipal civil registrars to correct clerical or
typographical errors in an entry and/or change the first name or nickname in
the civil registry without need for a judicial order. The petitions were filed before the trial court
because there was no incumbent Local Civil Registrar and the OIC-Civil
Registrar could not act on these petitions under R.A. No. 9048. Since R.A. No. 9048 allows corrections of
entries without hearing and publication for as long as the necessary documents
are submitted, the trial court considered the same procedure as applicable to
the petitions for correction of entries filed before it. The Clerk of Court still held ex parte hearings
to receive the evidence. In resolving
these petitions which are summary and non-adversarial in nature, the trial
court adopted the procedure in civil cases where the defendant is declared in
default and the court renders judgment based on the pleadings filed by
plaintiff and grants such relief as may be warranted, following Sec. 3, Rule 9
of the Revised Rules of Court. The trial
court adopted this procedure to expedite the resolution of said petitions to
afford the court more time to devote to the resolution of criminal and civil
cases that required more attention.
(b)
As to the 86 petitions that were resolved on the
same date as the date of filing or date of hearing —
These petitions were for correction of entry/ies
and involved innocuous errors that may be subject of administrative corrections
under R.A. No. 9048. The trial court
resolved these petitions with dispatch to accommodate the petitioners’ need to
have their civil registry documents immediately corrected to conform with their
passport applications, applications to take board examinations and petitions to
travel abroad. The petitioners discovered
the errors after they submitted the required documents and yet they were given
a limited period to secure the correction of the erroneous entries. If the corrected documents were not submitted
on time, the applications of the petitioners would be denied and the denials would
mean lost opportunities, particularly for the applicants for overseas contract
work and applicants to take board examinations.
Judge Sotero was more lenient in such instances since in his view no
substantial prejudice would ensue. In any event, he resolved to adopt, henceforth,
a stricter policy in cases where no publication is required, by imposing a ten
(10) day period for posting of the petition after its filing and seeing to it
that the petition is set for hearing only after it is so posted.
(c)
As to the 70 petitions where no court action was
taken for a considerable length of time after filing —
Some are petitions for adoption awaiting the
submission of the Home Study and Child Study Reports by the social welfare officers
assigned to the cases. The initial hearing cannot proceed without the reports
being submitted to the court.
Others are petitions for correction of entry/ies
where the petitioners have not yet submitted the required supporting
documents. They will be either dismissed
for lack of interest in due time or resolved within the next thirty (30) days.
The rest are petitions for judicial
reconstitution of title which are still pending because the reports and
recommendation of the Land Registration Authority have not yet been submitted
to the court.
(d)
As to the petitions with similar/same docket
numbers —
According to the docket clerk, Mr. Ruben A.
Gigante, the nine (9) petitions with similar docket numbers were either
cancelled or withdrawn by petitioner/s (they bear the notation “no action
taken”).
As to the three (3) cases with the same docket
number, Mr. Gigante admitted that he failed to enter the first filed petition in
the docket book, and that he accepted for filing the succeeding petitions but
assigned the same case number without indicating a letter after the number to
distinguish the second and third petitions from the first.
It was admitted that the irregularity was the
offshoot of inefficiency in the docketing system. To avoid similar incidents, the Clerk-in-Charge
of Civil Cases was assigned to take charge of the docket in special proceedings
and land registration cases in place of Mr. Gigante who is only a utility
clerk.
(e)
As to un-audited records of 179 special
proceedings and 33 land registration cases —
Judge Sotero and Clerk of Court Saguyod reported
that as of the time of the submission of the explanation, the records of 124 special
proceedings and 10 land registration cases had been accounted for. Thereupon, they requested another 15 days to
retrieve the remaining records which they believe were soaked in floodwater in 2004.
The Office of the Court Administrator
(OCA), in its Memorandum dated 8 May 2006,[7]
deemed the explanation bereft of merit or deserving of scant
consideration. The OCA noted that the
petitions for change of name and/or correction of entries in the civil registry
are special proceedings governed either by Rules 103 or 108 of the Revised
Rules of Court. Sec. 3, Rule 103
specifically provides when the order for hearing of such petitions shall be
issued and what the order should contain, thus:
SEC. 3.
Order for hearing.—If the petition filed is sufficient in form
and substance, the court, by an order reciting the purpose of the petition,
shall fix a date and place for the hearing thereof, and shall direct that a
copy of the order be published before the hearing at least once a week for
three (3) successive weeks in some newspaper of general circulation published
in the province, as the court shall deem best.
The date set for the hearing shall not be within thirty (30) days prior
to an election or within four (4) months after the last publication of the
notice.
Sec. 4,
Rule 108 similarly requires the issuance of an order of hearing and the publication
of the order in petitions for correction of entries in the civil registry, thus:
SEC. 4.
Notice and Publication.—Upon the filing of the petition, the
court shall, by an order, fix the time and place for the hearing of the same,
and cause reasonable notice thereof to be given to the person named in the
petition. The court shall also cause the
order to be published once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks in a
newspaper of general circulation in the province.
The OCA maintained that the provisions
of the Rules of Court on publication of the order of hearing should have been
strictly observed as publication is a jurisdictional requirement. Hence, the
OCA remarked, it is appalling that Judge Sotero and Clerk of Court Saguyod favorably
acted on the petitions even though they were only pro-forma and notarized by
Saguyod as an ex officio notary public and still others were unsigned,
unverified or unnotarized. Some 86
petitions were found to bear dates of filing which are the same as or ahead of
the date of the alleged hearing/decision, clearly belying the claim of Judge
Sotero that hearings on these petitions were conducted or that they were
referred to the Clerk of Court for presentation of evidence ex parte. Said
practices, according to the OCA, constitute a mockery of established procedure
under the Rules of Court, especially since nothing in R.A. No. 9048 or its
Implementing Rules and Regulations would justify the procedure that Judge
Sotero and Clerk of Court Saguyod adopted.
The OCA observed that what R.A. No. 9048 mandates
is the administrative proceeding for change of name/correction of entry in the
civil registry which has no application to a petition for change of name or
correction of entry filed in court.
Thus, the OCA went on to say, Judge Sotero’s ratiocination for adopting
the procedure under R.A. No. 9048 or for treating the petitions in the same manner
as ordinary cases where the defendant is declared in default displays a
deplorable lack of grasp or total ignorance of the Rules of Civil Procedure,
notwithstanding his claim that he did so for the purpose of expediting the
resolution of the petitions.
As to the fifty-six (56) petitions where no
action was taken by Judge Sotero for almost one year, the OCA found him to be
decidedly remiss in the performance of his duties and responsibilities. As court manager, it was incumbent upon Judge
Sotero to adopt a system of record management since the prompt disposition of
the court’s business is attained only through proper and efficient court
management, the OCA added.
The OCA recommended that Judge Sotero
be fined for gross ignorance of the law and gross inefficiency in the amount of
P100,000.00, to be deducted from his retirement benefits, and that the
amount of P50,000.00 be withheld from such benefits pending the outcome
of the financial audit.[8]
As to Clerk of Court Saguyod, the OCA
recommended that he be directed to submit a report of the actions taken on the
civil and criminal cases then pending before the RTC which Judge Sotero was
directed to either decide with dispatch or immediately act upon. Saguyod complied with the submission of his
Report dated
After careful consideration of the
findings and recommendations of the OCA, the Court agrees that indeed Judge
Sotero is guilty of gross ignorance of the law.
Articles 376[10]
and 412[11]
of the New Civil Code are the substantive laws covering the alteration or
correction of entries in the civil registry.
Civil registry records are public documents and are accepted as prima facie evidence of the facts
contained therein,[12]
which is why prior to the enactment of R.A. No. 9048, changes or corrections thereof
could be made only upon judicial authorization. Rules 103 and 108 of the
Revised Rules of Court provide the procedure for such alterations in the civil
registry.
The procedure for change of name under
Rule 103 is a proceeding in rem and
as such strict compliance with all jurisdictional requirements, particularly on
publication, is essential in order to vest the court with jurisdiction.[13] The reason for this is that a change of name
is a matter of public interest.[14]
Petitions for cancellation or correction of
entries in the civil registry are governed by Rule 108. This rule covers petitions for corrections of
clerical errors of a harmless or innocuous nature, as well as petitions which seek
to effect substantial changes or corrections in entries for as long as
all the procedural
requirements in said rule are
followed. In Republic v. Bautista,[15]
citing Republic v. Valencia,[16]
it was declared that the proceedings
under Rule 108 may either be summary or adversarial in nature. If the correction sought to be made in the
civil registry is clerical, the procedure to be adopted is summary. If the rectification affects the civil
status, citizenship or nationality of a party, it is deemed substantial and the
procedure to be adopted is adversarial.[17] The procedure under Rule 108 becomes the
appropriate adversarial proceeding to effect substantial changes in the
registry only if the procedural requirements therein are complied with.[18]
R.A. No. 9048, enacted in 2001, substantially
amended Articles 376 and 412 of the New Civil Code, to wit:
SECTION 1. Authority to Correct
Clerical or Typographical Error and Change of First Name or Nickname.—No
entry in a civil register shall be changed or corrected without a judicial
order, except for clerical or typographical errors and change of first name or
nickname which can be corrected or changed by the concerned city or municipal
civil registrar or consul general in accordance with the provisions of this Act
and its implementing rules and regulations.
Thus,
under this new law, clerical or typographical errors and change of first name
or nickname may be corrected or effected by the concerned city or municipal
registrar or consul general, without need of any judicial order.
At first glance, the seeming effect of the
amendment is to remove from the ambit of Rule 108 the correction of clerical or
typographical errors or change of entries in the civil register and to make
Rule 108 apply only to substantial changes and corrections to entries in the
civil register. Hence, we clarified in Republic
v. Benemerito[19] that the obvious effect of R.A. No. 9048 is
merely to make possible the administrative correction of clerical or
typographical errors in entries and the administrative change of first name or
nickname in the civil register, leaving to Rule 108 the correction of
substantial changes in the civil registry in appropriate adversarial
proceedings. Hence, the question that now
arises is whether
trial courts still have jurisdiction
over
petitions for correction of clerical errors and change of first name and
nickname in the civil registry. Assuming
that the trial courts retain such authority, the corollary question is whether the
summary procedure prescribed in R.A. No. 9048 should be adopted in cases filed
before the courts, or should the adversarial proceeding under Rule 108 be
followed.
The answers to these queries are central to the
resolution of the case at bar, as they determine whether Judge Sotero had indeed
acted with gross ignorance of the law or whether his liability, if any, can be
tempered as he acted in good faith on a doubtful question of law.
A
review of the deliberations on R.A. No. 9048 clearly shows that it was enacted to
give the people an option to have the erroneous entries in their civil records
corrected via an administrative proceeding before the local civil registrar that
is less expensive and more expeditious. In his sponsorship speech at the
Senate, the main proponent mentioned in particular that the judicial process under
Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court for the correction of clerical errors is
tedious and expensive. To address the
problem, it was proposed that Article 412 of the Civil Code be amended by providing, by way of an exception
thereto, that clerical or typographical errors be corrected by the city or
municipal civil registrar. The sponsor specified
that the errors that may be corrected under the proposal are only those “committed
in the performance of clerical work in writing, copying, transcribing or typing
an entry in the civil register that is harmless and innocuous, such as a
misspelled name or place of birth which is visible to the eyes or obvious to
the understanding, and can be corrected
or changed only by reference to
other
existing records,” and that “in no case may the correction involve the change
of nationality, age, status or gender of a person.”[20] Further debate led to the proposal to include
change of first name or nickname which was approved. However, such change of first name or
nickname would only be allowed if based on some reasonable ground such as when
the name to be changed is ridiculous.[21]
Subsequent
deliberations revolved around specific provisions of the bill. Thus, under the bill, any person who wants an
entry corrected needs only to file a verified petition supported by certain
documents with the local civil registry office of the city or municipality
where the records sought to be corrected are kept and, in case the petitioner
has already migrated to another place, the petition may be filed with the local
civil registrar where he resides.
Publication of the petition for correction of entry is dispensed with
and in lieu of publication, the petition needs only to be posted in a
conspicuous place in the office of the local civil registrar for ten (10)
consecutive working days. However, regarding
petitions for change of first name, the petition has to be published once a
week for two (2) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation, with the
petitioner also submitting a certification that he has no pending case or prior
criminal record. The local civil
registrar is mandated to decide the petition not later than five (5) working
days after the prescribed posting period.
The decision of the local registrar is subject to the automatic review
of the Civil Registrar General who shall act within ten (10) working days from
receipt of the decision. If the Civil
Registrar General finds that the correction is not clerical or typographical in
nature or that it affects the civil status of the person, he shall set aside
the decision and advise the petitioner to file the necessary petition with the
RTC in accordance with the Revised Rules of Court.
The
authority or jurisdiction of the trial courts over petitions for correction of
entries and change of first name or nickname was never taken up at the
deliberations. In contrast, it is quite clear from the deliberations that the
local civil registrar is given the authority to act on such petitions filed
before his office, yet there was nary a mention or even insinuation that such
petitions can no longer be filed with the regular courts. In fact, it was clarified that the grounds
upon which the administrative process before the local civil registrar may be
availed of are limited under the law; hence, outside of such limited grounds,
the judicial process should be availed of.
Indeed, there was no intent on the part of the lawmakers to remove the
authority of the trial courts to make judicial corrections of entries in the
civil registry. It can thus be concluded
that the local civil registrar has primary, not exclusive, jurisdiction over
such petitions for correction of clerical errors and change of first name or
nickname, with R.A. No. 9048 prescribing the procedure that the petitioner and
local civil registrar should follow.
Since R.A.
No. 9048 refers specifically to the administrative summary proceeding before
the local civil registrar it would be inappropriate to apply the same procedure
to petitions for the correction of entries in the civil registry before the
courts. The promulgation of rules of procedure for courts of justice is the
exclusive domain of the Supreme Court.[22]
Moreover, as observed by the OCA,
there is nothing in R.A. No. 9048 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations that
warrants the adoption of the procedure set therein for petitions before the
courts even for the purpose of expediting the resolution of said petitions.
Thus, there
should be recourse to the procedure prescribed for the courts as if R.A. No.
9048 were not enacted at all. In other
words, the procedure provided in the Revised Rules of Court for such petitions
remains binding and should be followed by the courts. The procedural requirements laid down in Rules
103 and 108 still have to be complied with.
In the case at hand, Judge Sotero should have applied the procedure
prescribed in Rules 103 and 108 in resolving the petitions before him, not the
procedure prescribed in R.A. No. 9048 or the procedure provided in Section 3,
Rule 9 which applies in civil cases where the defendant is declared in default.
Under
Rule 103, the petition for change of name should be signed and verified by the
person desiring a change of name, and set forth compliance with the residency
requirement, the cause for which the change of name is sought, and the new name
asked for. The court, after finding the
petition to be sufficient in form and substance, shall issue an order reciting
the purpose of the petition and fixing the date and place for the hearing of
the petition, and direct the publication of the order before the hearing at
least once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general
circulation in the province. Any
interested person may appear at the hearing and oppose the petition, with the
Solicitor General or city fiscal appearing on behalf of the Government. The court shall grant the petition only when
satisfactory proof has been presented in open court that the order had been
published as directed, the allegations in the petition are true, and proper and
reasonable causes appear for changing the name of the petitioner.[23]
Rule
108 requires publication of the verified petition for cancellation or
correction of entry once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper
of general circulation in the province; and that the civil registrar and all
persons who claim any interest and who would be affected by the petition be
made parties to the proceeding and be allowed to file their opposition to the
said cancellation or correction within fifteen (15) days from notice of the
petition or from the last date of publication.
It is only after a hearing that the court may either dismiss or grant
the petition.[24] Whether
the proceeding under this rule is summary or adversarial, depending on the type
of errors to be corrected, the procedural requirements under this rule still
need to be complied with, the nature of the proceeding becoming adversarial
only when any opposition to the petition is filed and actively prosecuted.
Petitions
for change of name and correction of entries in the civil registry are actions in
rem, the decision on the petition being binding not only on the parties
thereto but on the whole world. An in
rem proceeding is validated essentially through publication. Publication gives notice to the whole world
that the proceeding has for its object to bar indefinitely all who might be
minded to make an objection of any sort against the right sought to be
established. It is the publication of
such notice that brings in the whole world as a party to the case and vests the
court with jurisdiction to hear and decide it.[25]
In the
case at bar, the more than 300 cases for correction of entries filed before the
RTC of Paniqui and decided by Judge Sotero do not fall within the purview of
R.A. No. 9048. In other words, not all of
said petitions pertain to the change of first name or nickname or the
correction of typographical errors in the entries of the registry. Some of said petitions involve substantial
changes in the registry such as change of age, sex, status, and nationality,
and even of middle names and surnames of the petitioners. Judge Sotero’s conduct in acting on the
petitions, without full compliance with the procedural requirements under Rules
103 and 108 of the Revised Rules of Court, is appalling. He explained that since R.A. No. 9048 allows
corrections of entries without need of hearing and publication for as long as
the necessary documents are submitted, the same procedure under R.A. No. 9048
is applicable to the petitions filed before the court. The explanation does not
impress. The records of the cases show
that Judge Sotero did not comply with the administrative procedure under the
said law. Thus, while R.A. No. 9048
requires that the petition for correction of entries be posted in a conspicuous
place for ten (10) consecutive days, the records show that some of the
petitions were decided less than ten (10) days from the date of filing. Clearly
then, there was no way that the 10-day posting requirement could have been
accomplished. The petitions for change of name were also granted even without publication
of the order of hearing in a newspaper of general circulation.
Observance
of the procedure under R.A. No. 9048 does not excuse Judge Sotero’s
blunders. It appears though that he
could have acted under the false impression that the petitions could be filed
only with the local civil registrar and not with the courts. Verily, he claims that he resolved the
petitions with dispatch in order to accommodate the need of the petitioners to
have their civil registry documents corrected with immediacy and that he was
more lenient since no substantial prejudice would ensue. His misapprehension affords him no
justification or extenuation. Moreover, his
concern and compassion for the petitioners are misplaced. As a member of the bench, he should be
equipped with the basic knowledge of rules of procedure, including Rules 103
and 108, which govern the disposition of the petitions. Judge Sotero’s actuations clearly exposed a
deplorable deficiency in his grasp of the basic principles of law and rudimentary
rules of procedure, for which he should be held administratively liable.
As an
advocate of justice and a visible representation of the law, a judge is
expected to be proficient in the interpretation and application of our laws. Competence
and diligence are prerequisites to the due performance of judicial office.[26] When the law is sufficiently
basic, a judge owes it to his office to simply apply it, and anything less than
that would be constitutive of gross ignorance of the law. In short, when
the law is so elementary, not to be aware of it constitutes gross ignorance of
the law.[27]
Judge
Sotero’s ignorance of the law is aggravated by his gross inefficiency in
failing to take prompt action on some of the petitions for almost one
year. Proper and efficient court
management is ultimately the judge’s responsibility since he is the
administrator of the court. Canon 3,
Rule 3.08[28] and
Rule 3.09,[29] of the
Code of Judicial Conduct[30]
requires judges to manage their dockets in such manner that the work of their
courts is accomplished with reasonable dispatch.[31] Inefficiency implies negligence,
incompetence, ignorance and carelessness.
There is inexcusable inefficiency
on the part of a judge when he fails to observe
in the
performance of his duties that degree of diligence, prudence, and
circumspection which the law requires in the rendition of any public
service. When the inefficiency springs
from a failure to consider so basic and elemental a rule, a law or a principle
in the discharge of his duties, a judge is either too incompetent and
undeserving of the position and title he holds or he is too vicious that the
oversight or omission was deliberately done in bad faith and in grave abuse of
authority.[32]
Gross
ignorance of the law is classified as a serious charge under Section 8 of A.M.
No. 01-8-10-SC, amending Rule 140 of the Rules of Court on the Discipline of
Justices and Judges, which took effect on P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00. The serious infractions would have required
the imposition of dismissal as penalty had respondent judge not retired. So,
instead, we now impose a fine in the maximum, i.e., P40,000.00,
as the infractions which correspond to the sheer number of the petitions
decided by Judge Sotero all in disregard of basic rules of procedure, are
treated as aggravating circumstances.
WHEREFORE,
the Court finds respondent retired Judge Cesar M. Sotero of the Regional Trial
Court of Paniqui, Tarlac, Branch 67, GUILTY of gross ignorance
of
the
law
and
FINES
him in the
amount
of Forty Thousand Pesos (P40,000.00) to be deducted from the One Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) withheld from him pursuant to the Court’s Resolution
dated
SO
ORDERED.
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
|
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 |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice |
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
CANCIO C. GARCIA Associate Justice |
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO,
JR. Associate Justice |
ANTONIO EDUARDO B.
NACHURA Associate Justice |
RUBEN T. REYES
Associate Justice
[6]An Act Authorizing the
City or Municipal Civil Registrar or the Consul General to Correct a Clerical
or Typographical Error in An Entry and/or Change of First Name or Nickname in
the Civil Registrar Without Need of a Judicial Order, Amending for This Purpose
Articles 376 and 412 of the Civil Code of the Philippines; Effective 22 April
2001.
[9]Per Resolution dated
[12]ART. 410. The books making up the civil register and
all documents relating thereto shall be considered public documents and shall
be prima facie evidence of the facts
therein contained.
[20]Sponsorship Speech of
Senator Renato L. Cayetano, Senate Bill No. 2159 entitled “An Act Authorizing
the City or Municipal Civil Registrar to Correct or Change Clerical or
Typographical Errors in the Civil Register Without Need of a Judicial Order,
Amending the Civil Code of the Philippines, Article 412,” 30 January 2001.
[28]A judge should diligently discharge
administrative responsibilities, maintain professional competence in court
management, and facilitate the performance of the administrative functions of
other judges and court personnel.
[29]A judge should organize and supervise the
court personnel to ensure the prompt and efficient dispatch of business, and
require at all times the observance of high standards of public service and
fidelity.
[30]Applicable in a suppletory character to
the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary.