EN BANC
|
Letter of
Judge Josefina D. Far Audit Report
on the Judicial Audit Conducted at the Regional Trial Court (RTC), |
A.M. No. 06-3-196-RTC A.M. No.
06-7-416-RTC Present:
Puno, C.J., Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, CARPIO, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CARPIO MORALES, azcuna, TINGA, chico-nazario, velasco, jr., nachura, REYES, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, and BRION, JJ. Promulgated: December 24, 2008
|
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
Before
us is a Memorandum dated October 23,
1.
that
A.M. 06-3-196-RT[C] (Letter of Judge Josefina D. Farrales, Acting Presiding
Judge, RTC, Br. 72,
2.
that
Judge Eliodoro [G]. Ubiadas be held administratively liable for GROSS MISCONDUCT, GROSS INEFFICIENCY and
VIOLATIONS OF SC CIRCULAR and he be FINED
in an amount equivalent to his six (6) months salary;
3.
that
Branch Clerk of Court Gerry R. Gruspe be held administratively liable for GROSS INEFFICIENCY and VIOLATIONS OF SC CIRCULAR and that he
be FINED in the amount of Two
Thousand (P2,000.00) Pesos with a stern warning that a repetition of the
same or similar offense in the future shall be dealt with more severely;
4.
that
Misses Catalina A. Atienza and Rizanilla R. Vito, Clerks-in-Charge of the
Docket Books, same Court, to SUBMIT
a quarterly report until the updating of aforesaid docket books are completed
with a STERN WARNING that a
repetition of the same shall be dealt with more severely;
5.
the
Documentation Division-Legal OCA to COLLECT
from Pacific Union Insurance Company Incorporated its liability for forfeited
bonds in the following cases:
|
CERTIFICATION
NO. |
ISSUED |
TOTAL
AMOUNT OF THE BOND |
|||
|
488-0, Series of 2005 |
Atty.
John V. Aquino Office
of the Clerk of Court |
Php256,000.00 |
|||
|
Branch |
Case
Numbers |
Amount of
Bond |
Remarks |
||
|
72 |
CR No. 435-02 |
Php 12,000.00 |
Bond
of accused Cecilia Asuncion amounting to Php80,000.00 which was reduced to
15% included in the Php530,000.00 reduced bond. |
||
|
74 |
CR Nos. 321-02- and 270-02 |
64,000.00 |
Not paid yet paid to the OCC |
||
|
75 |
CR Nos. 662-03, 134-03 and 743-03 |
180,000.00 |
|||
It is likewise recommended that the Office of the
Court Administrator be DIRECTED to
make a REPORT and RECOMMENDATION that will be used as
guidelines for the reduction of the liability of the bondsmen in forfeited
bonds within sixty (60) days from notice hereof.
The present consolidated
administrative matters have the following antecedent facts:
A.M. 06-3-196-RTC
The
Court, through the First Division, issued Resolution dated
Subsequently,
several judges were designated[1] to
preside over Branch 72, namely: Hon. Renato J. Dilag, RTC, Br. 73,
Upon
her assumption, Judge Farrales immediately conducted an inventory of the
pending cases in Branch 72. In her
letter dated
The
Court[2]
noted Judge Farrales’ letter, directed her to resolve the cases/motions within
six (6) months and to submit a copy of each of her decisions/resolutions within
10 days from rendition/promulgation thereof.
The Court likewise required Judge Ubiadas and Judge Caguioa to explain
within 10 days from notice, their failure to decide/resolve the subject cases/motions
within the reglementary periods and to make the necessary request for extension
of time within which to decide/resolve the same.
In a series of compliances, Judge Farrales informed the
Court through the OCA that she had decided/resolved all the 30 pending cases
and 84 motions. The Court noted said
compliances and considered the same as full compliance in the present
administrative matter.
In the
meantime, Judge Caguioa, in a letter dated
On
A.M. No. 06-7-416-RTC
On
The
Report dated
Apart
from the 30 cases and 84 motions submitted for decision/resolution mentioned in
A.M. No. 06-3-196-RTC, the audit team noted that there were still other cases
submitted for decision/resolution and matters which were not acted upon for a
considerable length of time, to wit:
|
Status |
Criminal |
Civil |
|
|
1 |
3 |
|
|
7 |
7 |
|
SFR**
beyond the reglementary period |
4 |
6 |
|
SFR**
still within the reglementary period |
2 |
13 |
|
Cases
in different stages of proceedings without further action for a considerable
length of time |
3 |
5 |
|
Warrants
of Arrest 1. No Return/Unacted 2. For issuance of alias warrant of
arrest |
39 32 |
- |
|
Summons |
- |
2 |
|
No
further action/setting |
4 |
17 |
|
For
compliance of the parties |
4 |
23 |
|
For
compliance of the Bondsmen |
51 |
- |
|
Total |
|
|
*
** SFR-Submitted for
Resolution
Consequently,
the Court En Banc issued a Resolution
dated
In the same resolution, the Court directed Judge Farrales and
Branch Clerk of Court, Atty. Gerry R. Gruspe, to take appropriate action on the
lapses in records management,[3] as
well as on the observation of the Audit Team concerning the archiving of cases.[4] They were also required to submit a report on
the action taken and the present status of all the cases mentioned in the audit
report, with instruction to attach to the report the copies of the orders/decisions/resolutions
for reference as well as the measures taken with regard to the records
management issues.
The
latter part of the said resolution is quoted as follows:
(c) DIRECT Presiding
Judge Eliodoro G. Ubiadas to
(i) EXPLAIN within thirty (30) days from
notice hereof his failure to decide/resolve the cases enumerated in Exhibits
“A”-“A-
(ii) EXPLAIN within thirty (30) days from
notice hereof why he granted the reduction of the liability of the bondsmen in
the following cases, to wit:
|
CASE NUMBER |
PARTIES |
AMOUNT OF THE BOND |
|
CR NO. 383-02 |
Pp vs. Joel Llanilo |
Php 10,000.00 |
|
CR NO. 356-02 CR NO. 357-02 |
Pp vs. Rey dela
Cruz |
20,000.00 each Accused |
|
CR NO. 642-03 |
Pp vs. Renato Silva |
200,000.00 |
|
CR NO. 22-02 |
Pp vs. David Dengwas |
10,000.00
each |
|
Total Amount of the
Bond
Php340,000.00 |
||
|
REMARKS 1. In a joint Motion to Reduce Bondsman Liability dated August 31, 2004, Commonwealth Insurance Company, thru its authorized representative, Dolores K. Millora, moved that the liability of the bonding company be reduced from Php340,000.00 to Php17,000.00 or equivalent to five (5%) of the total forfeited bond. She averred that bondsman has already exerted earnest effort to locate them and had already spent much more than the premium of the bonds received from them. 2. Order dated 3. Order dated |
||
|
CASE NUMBER |
PARTIES |
AMOUNT OF THE BOND |
|
CR NO. 18-01 |
Pp vs. Sernan Patero |
Total Amount of the Bond Php530,000.00 |
|
CR NO. 675-01 |
Pp vs. Beth Mendoza, et al. |
|
|
CR NO. 672-99 |
Pp vs. Edgar Natividad |
|
|
CR NO. 95-01 |
Pp vs. Pedro Sarmiento |
|
|
CR NO. 435-02 |
Pp vs. Cecilia Asuncion |
|
|
CR NO. 397-01 |
Pp vs. Joel Santos |
|
|
CR NO. 289-99 |
Pp vs. Remedios
De Dios |
|
|
CR NO. 30-02 |
Pp vs. Michael Garon |
|
|
REMARKS 2. Per confirmation with the
Office of the Clerk of Court, said amount was not paid by the bonding
company. |
||
(d) DIRECT Branch Clerk of Court Gerry R.
Gruspe, same court, to EXPLAIN
within thirty (30) days from notice hereof:
(i) why the
Monthly Report of Cases for the months of May 2005 up to February 2006 were
only submitted to the Court on
(ii) his failure
to execute the judgments on the bond in the following cases as well as those
cases enumerated in paragraph 2.d (B), to wit:
|
Case No. |
Name of
Accused |
Bondsman |
Amount of
Bond |
Date of
Judgment |
|
1. 124-03 |
B.
Sangco |
Plaridel Surety Company |
|
|
|
2. 296-03 |
I.
Baula |
24,000.00 |
||
|
3. 297-03 |
I.
Baula |
24,000.00 |
||
|
4. 501-03 |
A.
Naga |
80,000.00 |
(iii) the non-submission of the stenographic notes of the cases
submitted for decision/resolution that further causes the delay in the
disposition of the cases;
(e) DIRECT Ms. Catalina A. Atienza and
Rizanilla R. Vito, Clerks-in-Charge of the Docket Books, same court, to UPDATE the entries in the docket books
assigned to them from year 2005 to 2006, and SUBMIT COM
(f) REQUIRE Ms. Catalina A. Atienza and
Rizanilla R. Vito to SUBMIT a
quarterly report until the updating of the aforesaid docket books is completed.
The Court further resolved to:
(a) REFER the Orders dated September 23,
2004 and February 16, 2005 of Judge Ubiadas, reducing the liabilities of the
Commonwealth and Pacific Union Insurance Company, respectively, as well as the
Certification No. 488-0, Series of 2005, issued by Clerk of Court John V.
Aquino, RTC, Olongapo City, to the C
(b) DIRECT
the Office of the Court Administrator to WITHHOLD
the retirement benefits of Judge Ubiadas pending the submission of the
recommendation of the Committee on Bonds-OCA.
In a Resolution dated
With regard to the status of the pending
cases and incidents subject of these consolidated administrative cases, records
show that Judge Farrales had already resolved and acted upon all the cases and
unresolved motions pending in Branch 72.
She also informed the Court that new measures/procedures are being
implemented in order to correct the lapses in records management and that
regular counter-checking is being done to avoid recurrence of similar
incidents.
We now come
to the OCA’s recommendations with respect to Judge Ubiadas. Two (2) issues must be addressed herein: first, whether Judge Ubiadas is guilty
of gross ignorance and/or gross misconduct in reducing the liability of
Commonwealth Insurance Company (Commonwealth) and Pacific Union Insurance
Company, Incorporated (Pacific Union); and second,
whether he is guilty of gross inefficiency in the conduct of court business and
violations of existing SC circulars.
On
the first issue, the Audit Team reported that Commonwealth filed a motion to
reduce bondsman liability from P340,000.00 to P17,000.00 or
equivalent to 5% of the total forfeited bond in Criminal Case Nos. 383-02,
356-02 to 357-02, 642-03 and 224-02. In
said motion, Commonwealth averred that it exerted earnest efforts to locate and
apprehend the accused and has already spent much more than the premium of the
bonds it had received from the accused.
In an Order
dated P17,000.00.[5] Later, then acting presiding Judge Dilag
issued an Order dated
Pacific
Union, on the other hand, filed a motion for mitigation of surety’s liability
in Criminal Case Nos. 18-01, 675-01, 672-99, 95-01, 435-02, 397-01, 289-99 and
30-02 in the total amount of P 530,000.00. Pacific Union claimed that it had already
spent nearly the amount of the bond posted in the said cases and that it spared
no time and effort to comply with the court orders but was, however, hampered
by unavoidable circumstances. It also
claimed that should it be held liable to the full amount of the confiscated
bonds, it will suffer tremendous losses in its business. Hence, it prayed that the court reconsider
its order of execution and that it be allowed to pay 10% of the P530,000.00.
Judge
Ubiadas, in an Order dated P 530,000.00 or to P 79,500.00. The writs of execution previously issued were
thus amended. From the records, it would appear that Pacific Union did not pay
even this greatly reduced amount, among other unpaid liabilities as found by
the Audit Team.
On
this matter, the OCA further informed the Court that there is no existing
Committee on Bonds which could appropriately act on Judge Ubiadas’ Orders dated
As a
defense to charge of misconduct with respect to the reduction of the
liabilities of the aforementioned bondsmen, Judge Ubiadas explained that he was
“guided in good faith” by the ruling[8] of
this Court which were cited by Commonwealth and Pacific Union.
The rule
governing forfeitures of bail bonds is found in Section 21, Rule 114 of the
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, which provides:
Sec.
21. Forfeiture of bail. – When
the presence of the accused is required by the court or these Rules, his
bondsmen shall be notified to produce him before the court on a given date and
time. If the accused fails to appear in
person as required, his bail shall be declared forfeited and the bondsmen given
thirty (30) days within which to produce the principal and to show cause why no
judgment should be rendered against them for the amount of their bail. Within the said period, the bondmen must:
a.
produce
the body of the principal or give the reason for his non-production; and
b.
explain
why the accused did not appear before the court when first required to do so.
Failing
in these two requisites, a judgment shall be rendered against the bondsmen,
jointly and severally, for the amount of the bail. The Court shall not reduce or otherwise
mitigate the liability of the bondsmen, unless the accused has been surrendered
or is acquitted.
Significantly,
OCA Circular No. 100-2006 (Re: Guidelines on the Reduction of Bond Liability)
provides:
1.
REDUCTION OF BOND LIABILITY –
Following an Order of Forfeiture, the Court may reduce or otherwise mitigate
the liability of the bondsmen, PROVIDED, the accused has been
surrendered or is acquitted. Only in
these two instances may Judges reduce or mitigate the liability of the
bondsmen. (RULE 114, SEC. 21)
The OCA’s
assessment of Judge Ubiadas’ mitigation of the liabilities of Commonwealth and
Pacific Union follows:
In the case at bar, Judge Ubiadas not
only failed to perform his duties in accordance with the Rules, but he also
acted willfully and in gross disregard of the law and controlling jurisprudence. As noted, the
case of Pp vs. Sanchez is one of the
cases cited by Judge Ubiadas in explaining his grant of the motion for
reduction/mitigating the liabilities of bondsmen. Hence,
he is fully aware that the surrender of the accused is the common consideration
in the reduction of liability of the surety. It can be said, therefore, that the said
oversight or omission was deliberately done in bad faith and in grave abuse of
judicial authority.
However,
other issues should be clarified. In
this particular instance, the said orders were not questioned by the accused
nor the surety company as the same were not adverse to them. It was only discovered during the audit of the
records. There is no way by which the abuse of discretion/propriety, if there is
any, in granting reduction of the liability maybe counter-checked. It is necessary, therefore, that specific
guidelines be used as basis for the reduction of the liability of the bondsmen
in order to prevent appearance of impropriety and/or impropriety in the grant
if the reduction of the liability of the surety. (emphasis supplied)
We agree
with the OCA that Judge Ubiadas failed to strictly comply with the rules
pertaining to forfeitures of bail bonds, in particular the prescription that
the bondsman’s liability can only be mitigated when the accused has been
surrendered or is acquitted. However,
Judge Ubiadas’ conduct on this matter cannot be readily characterized as “gross
ignorance” or “gross misconduct” in the absence of specific guidelines which
the OCA itself stated in its report as necessary as a standard to measure the
propriety or impropriety of mitigation of a bondsman’s liability.
Anent
the second issue, We hold that Judge Ubiadas is guilty of gross inefficiency in the conduct of
court business and of violations of existing SC circulars.
The
Constitution provides that lower courts have three (3) months within which to
decide cases or resolve matters submitted to them for resolution. [9] Moreover, the Code of Judicial Conduct
enjoins judges to dispose of their business promptly and decide cases within
the required period.[10] In addition, this Court laid down guidelines
in SC Administrative Circular No. 13 which provides, inter alia, that
“[j]udges shall observe scrupulously the periods prescribed by Article VIII,
Section 15, of the Constitution for the adjudication and resolution of all
cases or matters submitted in their courts.
Thus, all cases or matters must be decided or resolved within twelve months
from date of submission by all lower collegiate courts while all other lower
courts are given a period of three months to do so.” We have reiterated this admonition in SC
Administrative Circular No. 3-99 which requires all judges to scrupulously observe
the periods prescribed in the Constitution for deciding cases and the failure
to comply therewith is considered a serious violation of the constitutional
right of the parties to speedy disposition of their cases.
In
his letter, Judge Ubiadas cited his health conditions as an explanation for the
delay in deciding/resolving the cases/other matters submitted for
decision/resolution in Branch 72. Judge
Ubiadas averred that on
Judge
Ubiadas further explained that he was confined since
Indeed,
Judge Ubiadas’ illness could have adversely affected the performance of his
duties. Despite having just been
subjected to a triple by-pass operation, he knew fully well that he still had
to act as the judge of four (4)
This Court has incessantly admonished
members of the bench to administer justice without undue delay, for justice
delayed is justice denied. The present
clogged dockets in all levels of our judicial system cannot be cleared unless
every magistrate earnestly, painstakingly and faithfully complies with the
mandate of the law. Undue delay in the
disposition of cases amounts to a denial of justice which, in turn, brings the
courts into disrepute and ultimately erodes the faith and confidence of the
public in the judiciary.[14]
On this point, our ruling in
another case is instructive:
The Court finds deserving of due consideration, the explanation of
respondent Judge for leaving ten (10) undecided cases before his retirement
from the service. Serious illness may
justify the inability of a judge to perform his official duties and
functions. But then, the Court has to
enforce what is required by law and to impose a reasonable punishment for
violation thereof. The members of the
judiciary have the sworn duty to administer justice without undue delay. Failure to decide cases within the period
fixed by law constitutes a neglect of duty, which warrants the imposition of
administrative sanctions. When he was hindered by a grave malignancy,
it was incumbent upon the respondent Judge to request this Court, through the
Office of the Court Administrator, for additional time to decide the cases
which he could not seasonably act upon and decide. For failing to do so, respondent Judge has to
suffer the consequences of his omission.[15] (emphasis
supplied)
Aware of the caseload of judges, this Court has viewed with
understanding requests for extension made by judges. Hence, should a judge find himself unable to
decide cases within the 90-day period for doing so, he can ask for an extension
of time for deciding the same. Such
requests are generally granted.[16]
In
his letter, Judge Ubiadas acknowledged that it would have been better had he
requested for an extension of time to decide the cases. Yet, he hoped that this Court would understand
his failure by explaining that, “[t]o my mind, the measure of a judge’s
efficiency and hard work should be viewed more in the light of the total work
accomplished rather than ask for a prior excuse to decide the case beyond the
period allowed by the Rules.”
Judge
Ubiadas’ position is untenable. This
Court wishes to remind him that as an official of the Judiciary, he is expected
to follow the rules laid down by this Court for the prompt and speedy
disposition of cases. Failure to decide cases and other matters within the
reglementary period constitutes gross inefficiency and warrants the imposition
of administrative sanction. If a judge can
not comply with this Court’s directives on the matter of disposition of cases,
he may seek extensions from this Court to avoid administrative liability.
In
view of the foregoing, we agree with the OCA that Judge Ubiadas should be held
administratively liable. Records show
that prior to these consolidated cases, he had been held administratively
liable four (4) times.[17] Had he not compulsorily retired on
Instead,
the OCA recommended that Judge Ubiadas be meted the penalty of a fine
equivalent to six (6) months of his salary.
We approve the recommended penalty.
In one case,[18]
We explained, thus:
We have always considered the failure
of judge to decide a case within ninety (90) days as gross inefficiency and
imposed either fine or suspension from service without pay for such. The
fines imposed vary in each case, depending chiefly on the number of cases not
decided within the reglementary period and other factors, to wit: the presence of
aggravating or mitigating circumstances—the damage suffered by the parties as a
result of delay, the health and age of the judge, etc. Thus, in one
case, we set the fine at ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00)
for failure of a judge to decide 82 cases within the reglementary period,
taking into consideration the mitigating circumstance that it was the judge’s
first offense. In another case, the fine
imposed was sixty thousand pesos (P60,000.00), for the judge had not
decided about 25 or 27 cases. Still in other cases, the fines were variably set
at fifteen thousand pesos (P15,000.00), for nineteen (19) cases left
undecided, taking into consideration that it was the judge’s first offense; twenty
thousand pesos (P20,000.00), for three (3) undecided criminal cases;
eight thousand pesos (P8,000.00), for not deciding a criminal case for
three (3) years; forty thousand pesos (P40,000.00), for not deciding 278
cases within the prescribed period, taking note of the judge’s failing health
and age; and ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00), for belatedly rendering a
judgment of acquittal in a murder case, after one-half years from the date the
case was submitted for decision. In another case, suspension without pay for a period of six (6) months was
imposed since, besides the judge’s failure to timely decide an election protest
for eight (8) months, the judge submitted false certificates of services and
was found guilty of habitual absenteeism. (emphasis supplied; citations
omitted)
Here, Judge Ubiadas failed to decide 15 cases and 33 motions which were beyond the reglementary period to decide/resolve. Here were also other matters that were not acted upon. In affirming the OCA recommended penalty, we took into consideration Judge Ubiadas’ health. We also noted that his caseload then was 1,300 more or less and that during his tenure, as in his letter, he has “done [his] best and in utmost good faith to serve the ends of justice and perform [his] duties as a judge.” However, previous administrative sanctions imposed upon him must likewise to given appropriate weight.
With respect to Judge Caguioa,
records show that his letter was referred to the OCA for evaluation, report and
recommendation. At the time of the
consolidation of these two administrative matters, the OCA has yet to submit
its report.
We shall
dispense with the report and rule on Judge Caguioa’s liability, if any. In gist, Judge Caguioa explained that the
unresolved cases and motions were not brought to his attention; hence, he was unaware
that there are still matters that he had to address or he could have asked from
the Court an extension of time to decide on them.
The
Court takes this opportunity to again remind judges, clerks of court, and all
other court employees that they share the same duty and obligation to dispense
justice promptly. They should strive to
work together and mutually assist each other to achieve this goal. Nonetheless, judges have the primary
responsibility of maintaining the professional competence of their staff. Judges should organize and supervise their 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.[19]
Although
Judge Caguioa was merely the acting presiding Judge of Branch 72, he ought to
have been vigilant and probing in the management of the said court. His proffered excuse, that the undecided
cases and unresolved motions were not brought to his attention, is untenable. Accordingly, Judge Caguioa is hereby reminded
to be more circumspect in performing his functions as a judge, whether in his
own court or in other courts where he is just in an acting capacity.
With respect to Branch Clerk of Court
Gerry R. Gruspe, the OCA recommended that he should be held administratively
liable for gross inefficiency and violations of SC circular and that he be
fined in the amount of P2,000.00.
The OCA’s findings are quoted below:
As mentioned, at the end of each month the branch clerk of court shall be responsible for the preparation of the monthly report of cases and shall be certified under oath as true and correct by the branch clerk of court and must be also be certified by the presiding judge to the correctness of the report (A.C. No. 4-2004 dated February 4, 2004).
Notably, the reports for
the months of January to April 2005 were solely signed by Branch Clerk of Court
Gruspe and filed only on
|
Case No. |
Case Title |
Date Submitted |
|
1. CV No. 354-0-94 |
G. Dela Llana vs. City of |
|
|
2. CV No. 28-0-00 |
L. Viacrusis vs. J. Asada, etc. |
|
|
3. CV No.652-0-00 |
E. Stewart vs. Fely Baldos |
|
|
4. CV No. 456-0-02 |
E. Stewart vs. Fely Baldos |
|
|
5. CR No. 55-01 |
Pp vs. Wang Chan Chun |
|
|
6. CR No. 626-02 |
Pp vs. Judith Villatema |
|
Under the foregoing circumstances, it appears that the negligence of Branch Clerk of Court Gerry Gruspe in the performance of his duties and responsibilities compounded the delay in the disposition of cases and his lackadaisical attitude in the supervision of court personnel aggravated the mismanagement of the court’s business. If he is only assiduous in the performance of his official duties and in supervising the court personnel and managing the court’s dockets, the prompt disposition of the court’s business will be attained, despite the failure of Judge Ubiadas to adopt an efficient system of court management.
A Clerk of Court who is lax in the supervision of court personnel is subject to disciplinary action.
However, considering that this is the first time that the said Clerk of Court has committed the said infraction and in order to avoid repetition of similar offense, a fine in the amount of Two Thousand Pesos (Php2,000.00) with a stern warning that his failure to submit the reportorial requirements on time and similar lapses in the future will be dealt with more severely.
In his letter, Atty. Gruspe informed the
Court that he personally prepared the data in the Monthly Report of Cases Form
and that he had already issued writs of executions in Criminal Cases Nos.
124-03 (B. Sangco), 296-03 and 297-03 (I-Baula) and 501-03. He apologized for the delay in its submission
due to heavy workload. Also, Atty.
Gruspe averred that he has been a Clerk of Court V in Branch 72 and legal
researcher at the same time since
After consideration of the foregoing,
We agree with the OCA’s findings and recommendation. In Re:
Report on the Judicial Audit and Physical Inventory of Cases in the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 54, Bacolod City,[20]
we held that a branch clerk of court’s administrative functions are just as
vital to the prompt and proper administration of justice. A branch clerk of court is charged with the
efficient recording, filing and management of court records, besides having supervision
over court personnel. Having been
assigned a key role in the complement of the court, one cannot be permitted to
slacken on one’s job under one pretext or another. The clerk
of court in this case was advised to be assiduous in performing official duties
and in supervising and managing court dockets and records.
In another case,[21]
We held:
Clerks of Court Caparros and
Pulgar-Navarro should be reminded that they are ranking officers in our
judicial system. It is their basic
responsibilities to conduct docket inventory and to ensure that the records of
each case are constantly accounted for. The
volume of work cannot be an excuse for their being remiss in the performance of
these functions, and it may not be underscored enough that the office of a
clerk of court involves the performance of delicate administrative duties
essential to the prompt and proper administration of justice. (citations
omitted)
Thus,
under Section 52 (B)(1) of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases
in the Civil Service, simple neglect of duty is a less grave offense punishable
by suspension from office for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months
for the first offense, and dismissal for the second offense. Considering that this is Atty. Gruspe’s first
offense, he should be imposed a fine of P2,000.00.
As regards the docket books, the OCA did
not receive any updates from Misses Catalina A. Atienza and Rizanilla R. Vito
from the time that the Memorandum dated
WHEREFORE, the Court rules as follows:
1.
Judge Eliodoro G. Ubiadas, retired Presiding Judge, RTC,
Branch 72,
2.
Judge Ramon S. Caguio, Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 74,
3.
Branch Clerk of Court, Atty. Gerry R. Gruspe RTC, Branch 72,
Olongapo City, is GUILTY of simple
neglect of duty and hereby FINED the
amount of Two Thousand (P2,000.00) Pesos, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar offense in
the future shall be dealt with more severely;
4.
Misses Catalina A. Atienza and Rizanilla R. Vito,
Clerks-in-Charge of the Docket Books, same Court, are DIRECTED to submit quarterly reports until the updating of the
docket books are completed with a STERN
WARNING that repetition of the same lapses shall be dealt with more
severely;
5.
The Documentation Division-Legal OCA is DIRECTED to collect from Pacific Union Insurance Company
Incorporated its liability for forfeited bonds in the following cases:
|
CERTIFICATION
NO. |
ISSUED |
TOTAL
AMOUNT OF THE BOND |
|||
|
488-0, Series of 2005 |
Atty.
John V. Aquino Office
of the Clerk of Court |
Php256,000.00 |
|||
|
Branch |
Case
Numbers |
Amount of
Bond |
Remarks |
||
|
72 |
CR No. 435-02 |
Php 12,000.00 |
Bond
of accused Cecilia Asuncion amounting to Php80,000.00 which was reduced to
15% included in the Php530,000.00 reduced bond. |
||
|
74 |
CR Nos. 321-02- and 270-02 |
64,000.00 |
Not paid yet paid to the OCC |
||
|
75 |
CR Nos. 662-03, 134-03 and 743-03 |
180,000.00 |
|||
6.
the Office of the Court Administrator is DIRECTED to report on and
recommend guidelines for the reduction of the liability of the bondsmen in
forfeited bonds within sixty (60) days from notice hereof.
SO ORDERED.
TERESITA J.
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
LEONARDO A. QUISU
|
(No Part) CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO 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. AZC Associate Justice |
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate
Justice
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate
Justice
|
|
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
RUBEN T.
REYES Associate Justice |
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
[1] Report dated
[2] Resolution dated
[3] The Audit Team noted the following
observations in the Records Management of Branch 72, thus:
a.
Entries in the docket books are not
updated and deficient entries especially in civil and special proceedings which
merely indicate the title of the case and the date the case was filed. Copies of the decision were stapled in the
pages.
b.
No Certificate of Arraignment attached to
criminal case records so that there are instances that the accused were twice
arraigned or, in cases with multiple accused, one was not duly arraigned.
c.
Minutes of the Hearing have no summary of
what transpired during the hearing of the case, except hearings/trial with
witnesses presented.
d.
Returns of warrants of arrest are not
properly monitored.
e.
There are pending criminal cases which
were already included in the bundle of archived cases.
f.
Registry Return Cards were not properly
monitored.
g.
Court orders with directives for parties
are not properly monitored especially those with show cause order to the
bondsmen.
h.
Judgments on the bond are not executed.
i.
The Office of the Clerk of Court was not
informed of the consolidated, transferred, inhibited cases forwarded to other
branches.
j.
The Monthly Report of Cases and Semestral
Docket inventory were not filed on time.
k.
Stenographic notes were not attached to
the records of the case, especially on the cases submitted for
decision/resolution, causing further delay in their disposition.
[4] The
Report mentioned the Audit Team’s observation on Archived Cases, to wit:
In the sampling of archived cases, the Team noted that the show cause to bondsmen for their failure to produce the body of the accused during the hearing was not properly monitored. After the lapse of six (6) months, the case will be archived without any action on the show cause order. There are also instances where the judgments on the bond were already ordered but the same were not executed by the Branch Clerk of Court.
[5] O.R. No. 21257141 dated
[6] Administrative Matter No. 04-9-03-O - Re:
Query Dated 23 July 2004 of Ms. Mary Jane Tero of Sitio Cebulay, Gabuyan,
Kapalong, Davao del Norte, Requesting a Refund of Her Cash Bond in Criminal
Case No. 11277, issued on
[7] OCA Memorandum dated
[8] People
v. Lamberto Guevarra, et al.; Rural
Insurance and Surety Company, G.R. No. L-17644,
[9] Article VIII, Section
15 (1) of the 1987 Constitution.
[10] Canon 3, Rule 3.05.
[11] Judge Alicia I. Santos was promoted to the Court of Appeals.
[12] Presided formerly by Judge Leopoldo Calderon.
[13] Incumbent Judge Fatima
Asdala was assigned to
[14] Re:
Cases Left Undecided by Retired Judge Benjamin A. Bongolan of the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 2, Bangued, Abra, A.M. No. 98-12-394-RTC, October 20,
2005, 473 SCRA 428, 432, citing Cases Left Undecided by Retired Justice
Antonio E. Arbis, RTC Branch 48, Bacolod City, A.M. No. 99-1-01-RTC,
January 20, 2003, 395 SCRA 398, citing Concerned Citizens of Madella v.
Judge Ma. Theresa Dela Torre-Yadao, A.M. No. RTJ-01-1639,
[15]
[16] Re:
Judicial Audit Report Conducted in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 17,
[17] Per records of the
Docket and Clearance Division, there were eleven (11) administrative complaints
filed against Judge Ubiadas. Out of
these cases, one (1) case is still pending (A.M. No. RTJ-05-1902). However, he was meted administrative
sanctions in the following four (4) cases, to wit:
|
A.M. Case No. |
For |
Penalty |
|
1. RTJ-02-1712 |
Misconduct, Violation of SC Circular |
Fine Php5,000.00
( |
|
2. 02-1490-RTJ |
Gross Ignorance of the Law |
Reprimand ( |
|
3. RTJ-03-1774 |
Gross Ignorance of the law, grave abuse of authority and
violation of Code of Judicial Conduct |
Fine Php20,000.00
( |
|
4. RTJ-03-1768 |
Evident partiality and
violation of SC circular, gross ignorance of the law |
Fine Php15,000.00
( |
[18] Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in
[20] A.M. No. 06-4-219-RTC,
[21] Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in Regional Trial Court, Branch 61, Gumaca, Quezon; Regional Trial Court, Branch 63, Calauag, Quezon; Municipal Trial Court, Calauag, Quezon; and Municipal Trial Court, Tagkawayan, Quezon, A.M. No. 98-8-262-RTC, March 21, 2000, 328 SCRA 543, 581-582.