FIRST DIVISION
ATTY.
RODERICK M. SANTOS A.M. No. MTJ-07-1670
and
ALEXANDER ANDRES, (Formerly OCA IPI No. 06-1822-MTJ)
Complainants,
Present:
PUNO, C.J., Chairperson,
- versus - CARPIO,
AZCUNA, and
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, JJ.
JUDGE LAURO BERNARDO,
Municipal Trial Court, Bocaue,
Bulacan,
Respondent. Promulgated:
X
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
X
DECISION
AZCUNA, J.:
This is an administrative case against
respondent MTC Judge Lauro Bernardo for his alleged impropriety, manifest bias
and partiality, grave abuse of discretion, and gross ignorance of the
law/procedure relative to Criminal Case No. 06-004 entitled “People of the Philippines v. Atty. Roderick
M. Santos and Boyet Andres.”
On
Impropriety –
Respondent
is using government resources in the discharge of his functions for his
personal pleasure and convenience. Specifically,
he allows his girlfriend, a certain “Boots,” to stay and use as her lounge the
judge’s chamber in violation of his duty under Rule 2.01 of the Code of
Judicial Conduct to maintain proper decorum. On many occasions, even when there is a
hearing, his girlfriend stays in the chamber, hindering the full performance of
respondent’s duties as he has to attend to her whims and caprices, plus the
fact that his girlfriend is just cooling herself in the air-conditioned room
while litigants have to bear the cramped hot space of the courtroom. This act also invites suspicion since her mere
presence therein is an indication of who to talk to regarding a case. Following the case of Presado v. Genova,[1]
the act of respondent constitutes serious misconduct.
Manifest Bias and Partiality –
Respondent committed manifest bias
and partiality when he allowed the filing of Criminal Case No. 06-004 for Grave
Coercion against the complainants because it was his chance to get back at
Atty. Santos against whom he is harboring a grudge after the latter moved for
his inhibition in Criminal Case Nos. 04-430 and 04-572.
Instead of conducting a preliminary
investigation after the filing of the complaint to find probable cause to hold
complainants herein for trial, respondent immediately signed the criminal
complaint upon its filing and ordered that the case be set for “preliminary
hearing” on January 12, 2006. His own branch clerk certified that the
“complainant and her witnesses only subscribed their statement before the
presiding judge.” Worse, respondent allowed
the criminal case to be filed even if it is based on hearsay evidence, as the
complainant therein, one Dr. Elida D. Yanga, was not in the place at the time
the alleged offense happened. From the
documents gathered, the undue haste by which respondent acted is very evident
because the complaint-affidavit, the criminal complaint, and the subpoena have the
common date of
Grave Abuse of Discretion and
Unfaithfulness to the Law –
Respondent committed
grave abuse of discretion when he did not conduct a preliminary investigation
in Crim. Case No.
06-004. Under paragraph 2, Section 1,
Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure (Rules),[2]
preliminary investigation is required to be conducted before the filing of a
complaint or information for offenses where the penalty prescribed by law is at
least four years, two months and one day.
The maximum imposable penalty for Grave Coercion is six years
imprisonment; hence, complainants should have been accorded the right to
preliminary investigation whereby they could have demonstrated that the complaint
is worthless. Respondent, however, chose
to be ignorant of the basic provisions of the Rules in order to exact revenge
and cause them to unduly stand trial. Despite
the Motion to Quash Complaint with Prayer for Voluntary Inhibition filed by
complainants to give him a chance to correct his error by at least referring
the case to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Bulacan for the conduct
of the requisite preliminary investigation, he remained adamant by issuing an
order referring the case instead to the Executive Judge of Bulacan for its raffle
to another MTC judge. This act showed respondent’s
deliberate intent to make the complainants accused persons in a criminal case.
By allowing
the immediate filing of a patently unmeritorious case, respondent tainted Atty.
Santos’ good reputation: he is a law practitioner with companies in Makati,
Pasig and Manila as clients; he is a businessman and was also a former chairman
of the board and current board director of St. Martin of Tours Credit and Development
Cooperative, the largest credit cooperative in Region III; and he is a frequent
traveler, going abroad at least once a year. With the worthless criminal case filed against
him, respondent puts a sore obstacle to Atty. Santos’ way of life that is truly
an undeserved inconvenience.
On April
11, 2006, respondent filed his Comment arguing in the main that the charges
against him are hearsay, without factual and legal basis, and are a malicious
imputation upon his person; and that the acts stated in the complaint were
based solely on the bare allegations of the complainants as no corroborative
statements of witnesses were presented to prove the same. In contradicting
complainants’ representation, he stated thus:
As to the charge of Impropriety:
“Boots” (whose maiden name was Ma. Rosario
M. Layuga) is now respondent’s lawful wife, as proven by a marriage certificate
showing their civil union before a Caloocan City Regional Trial Court (RTC) judge on
Respondent’s
relation to his wife is “serious, open and known to the public” and that the
atmosphere prevailing in the court’s chamber even in the alleged presence of
his wife is “an atmosphere of friendship, respect and decency.” He related that he and his wife are regular
participants of Marriage Encounter prayer meetings as well as in the prayer
assemblies conducted by the Couples for Christ. Respondent is an active member of the Rotary
Club of Sta. Maria and Knights of Columbus, Marian Council of Sta. Maria,
Bulacan while his wife is a member of the Inner Wheel Club of the
As to the charge of Manifest Bias and
Partiality:
Complainants
interpreted that when respondent signed the criminal complaint as well as
subscribed the affidavits of the witnesses under oath he already made a finding
of probable cause. This is not correct
because his signature was only for the purpose of administering an oath, as
evidenced by the certification issued by the clerk of court. The fact is that the criminal case did not
reach the stage of preliminary investigation since complainants filed a Motion
for Inhibition which was readily granted.
Respondent conducted the court proceedings in accordance with the
provisions of the Rules, particularly Sections 3 (a) and 8 (b) of Rule 112.[3]
As to the charge of Grave Abuse of Discretion and Unfaithfulness to the
Law:
Admittedly,
preliminary investigation must be conducted before the filing of a complaint or
information for an offense where the penalty prescribed by law is at least four
years, two months and one day without regard to fine. In the case of Grave Coercion, however, there
is no need for a preliminary investigation since prision correccional (six months and one day to six years), which
is the imposable penalty for said crime, does not fall within the required penalty
of prision correccional maximum (four
years, two months and one day). The criminal
case against complainants should proceed in accordance with Section 8 (b) of
Rule 112.
When respondent
issued a subpoena setting the case for preliminary hearing it was taken as a
measure of “damage control.” Knowing
that a member of the Bar is being charged before the court, it might have
afforded the parties the chance to thresh out their differences and possibly
settle amicably. Likewise, his order to
forward the case to the Office of the Executive Judge was but a result of his
voluntary inhibition from the case, which he had chosen to definitely rule upon
instead of further quashing the criminal complaint since the Motion filed by
complainants prayed respondent to resolve two “judiciously irreconcilable”
issues.
As a background,
the enmity between respondent and Atty. Santos started in Criminal Case Nos. 04-430 and 04-572
wherein the latter appeared as private prosecutor in Criminal Case No. 04-430
for Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Damage to Property. The accused in said case later on filed a
similar case (docketed as Criminal Case No.
04-572) against Atty. Santos’ client.
Respondent found probable cause in both cases. Atty. Santos questioned this ruling but, on
appeal, the RTC sustained the findings. Atty.
Santos did not elevate the matter to the appellate court until the decision
became final.
In order for liability to attach for
ignorance of the law, the assailed order, decision or actuation of the judge in
the performance of official duties must not only be found erroneous but most importantly
it must be established that he was moved by bad faith, dishonesty or some other
like motive. In this case, respondent has
nothing to gain, material or otherwise, from the outcome of the criminal action;
he met the parties only during the proceedings in court, not before its filing,
and he inhibited himself promptly from the case. Atty. Santos instead is the one who has
animosity to respondent; he must realize and understand that what he
(respondent) had done is just all in a day’s work and nothing personal about
it.
In their Reply, the complainants
argued that aside from converting the judge’s chamber into a “nursing home” or
“convalescent center” what is more troubling is respondent’s own admission that
his wife’s activities therein are not limited to the “[care] for the sick” but
also to her involvement in trading, which is highly irregular and improper
since they are being conducted within the court’s premises. As regards the commendations received by
respondent, the complainants stated that it is most likely that everybody
working in the Municipal Government of Bocaue got an award because it was given
during its 400th foundation day; that the “pro-forma” certificates do not show whether he deserves it or not;
and in any event, these awards are totally irrelevant to the case. Incidentally, complainants also mentioned
that court sessions in Bocaue usually start late almost at
Likewise, complainants commented on the
“disturbing procedure” followed by respondent, which is, allowing the criminal
complaint to be immediately entered in the criminal docket (thus, converting it
to a criminal case by a mere stroke of the clerk of court’s pen) and signing the
criminal complaint aside from the affidavit-complaint without first finding probable
case. This, according to them, is contrary to the provision of Sec. 3 (a), Rule
112 of the Rules which states that only the affidavits must be subscribed and
sworn to, a rule that respondent must follow when he is to conduct his
investigatory functions under Sec. 3 or Sec. 9 (b), Rule 112.[4] Complainants also dismissed respondent’s
reasoning that his actuation was based on Sec. 3 (a) and Sec. 9 (b), Rule 112 because,
as proven by the absence of any transcript
of stenographic notes (TSN), the latter did not conduct searching
questions and answers to Dr. Yanga and her witnesses. He has to explain, therefore, why he admitted
a complaint based on hearsay evidence since the person who was not the object
of the alleged coercive acts is the one who is the offended party in the
criminal case.
Complainants insisted that since the
maximum penalty imposable for the offense of Grave Coercion is six years, a
preliminary investigation should have been held. Moreover, they maintained that Rule 112 is a
complete procedure in itself; hence, as stated in Sec. 9 (b), it is the duty of
respondent to dismiss the complaint or find probable cause within ten (10) days
from its filing and not to call for a “preliminary hearing,” which is a
non-existent procedure in the Rules.
Lastly, Atty. Santos denied that he
was the one who has hard feelings against respondent. Instead, he claimed that it
is a matter of record, in the Order resolving the Motion for Voluntary Inhibition
in Crim. Case Nos. 04-430 and 04-572, that the latter branded him as somebody
he could not “co-exist with … in the quest for a just and equitable
administration of justice.” Atty. Santos
alleged that respondent even furnished the Executive Judge of Bulacan with a
copy of the Order to broadcast that he is a difficult lawyer to deal with. He emphasized that this administrative
complaint is not about his client in Crim. Case No. 04-572 but is concerned
with the injustice committed by respondent when he willingly and deliberately
violated established rules and legal doctrines just so complainants would
suffer undue injury by being tried for a fabricated case of Grave Coercion.
Parrying
the supplementary allegations, on the other hand, respondent countered in his
Rejoinder that it is unfair for complainants to conclude, much more insinuate,
that his wife has something to do with any impropriety by her mere presence in
the chamber. He reiterated that her
company is necessitated by his health condition and that, anyway, she also has
her own business to attend to – that of managing the family inheritance of
leased premises in the nearby town of Pandi, Bulacan, and actively engaging herself
in an independent business concern, held not in MTC-Bocaue, which is the
large-scale trading of electric transformers, metal scraps and heavy equipment
entrusted to her by her uncles and close relatives.
As to the
charge of frequent delay of court sessions, respondent stated that he has been
always present and ready to begin the proceedings but it is the desire of most
lawyers to start at 2:00 p.m., more or less, because most of them, including
the public prosecutor and the PAO lawyer, come from RTC hearings and even all
the way from Malolos City. To compensate
for the lost time, however, he averred that court sessions adjourn even up to
Respondent
clarified that when he signed the affidavits of Dr. Yanga and her witnesses it
was only for the purpose of administering the oath of the person filing the criminal
complaint. He posited that the proper
rule that must be applied is not Sec. 3 (a), Rule 112, which refers to the
procedure in preliminary investigation, but Sec. 3, Rule 110[5]
on the institution of criminal actions providing that the complaint must be
subscribed by the offended party, any peace officer, or other public officer
charged with the enforcement of the law violated. Further, while respondent conceded that there
was really no TSN available because no hearing was held he asserted that under Sec.
9 (b) of Rule 112 a judge is authorized to just personally evaluate the
evidence before him to find probable cause instead of personally examining in
writing and under oath the complainant and his witnesses in the form of searching
questions and answers. Finally,
respondent firmly held on to his position that Grave Coercion is not one of the
crimes requiring preliminary investigation since the minimum penalty imposable
for said offense is six months and one day.
On P20,000 considering this is his first time to be sanctioned
for a serious charge. In its Report, the OCA stated:
Whether of not there is a need for preliminary investigation under Section 1 in relation to Section 9 of Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure depends upon the maximum imposable penalty for the crime charged in the complaint filed with the City Prosecutor’s Office and not upon the imposable penalty for the crime found to have been committed by respondent.
In San Agustin v. People, the Court held:
“However, we do not agree with the ruling
of the Court of Appeals that there was no need for the City Prosecutor to
conduct a preliminary investigation since the crime charged under the
Information filed with the MeTC was arbitrary detention under Article 124,
paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code punishable by arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period, which has a range of
four months and one day to two years and four months. Whether
or not there is a need for a preliminary investigation under Section 1 in
relation to Section 9 [now Section 8] of Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure depends upon the imposable penalty for the crime charged in
the complaint filed with the City or Provincial Prosecutor’s Office and not
upon the imposable penalty for the crime found to have been committed by the
respondent after a preliminary investigation. In this case, the crime charged in the
complaint of the NBI filed in the Department of Justice was kidnapping/serious
illegal detention, the imposable penalty for which is reclusion perpetua to death.”
The maximum imposable penalty for grave coercion is six years imprisonment and such entitled the accused to their right to a preliminary investigation to save them from the rigors of trials in case no probable cause exists to warrant the filing of the criminal complaint or information against them.
Respondent Judge should have
remanded the case to the public prosecutor for the purposes of preliminary
investigation. [The Supreme] Court in a
catena of cases held:
“The
absence of preliminary investigation does not affect the court’s jurisdiction
over the case. Nor do they impair the validity of the information or otherwise
render it defective, but if there were no preliminary investigation and the
defendants, before entering their plea, invite the attention of the court to
their absence, the court instead of dismissing the information, should conduct
such investigation, order the fiscal to conduct it or remand the case to the
inferior court so that preliminary investigation may be conducted.”
The issue raised by complainant does
not pertain to an error of judgment or to one pertaining to the exercise of
sound discretion by respondent. Rather, the issue is whether respondent
complied with the procedural rules so elementary that to digress from them
amounts to ignorance of the law. Since
the rules on preliminary investigation are basic and clearly expressed in the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, respondent’s actuation in denying the same
is deemed to have been attended by gross ignorance of the law and procedure.
[The Supreme] Court has consistently
held that lack of conversance with legal principles sufficiently basic and
elementary constitutes gross ignorance of the law. As an advocate of justice
and a visible representation of the law, a judge is expected to be proficient
in the interpretation of our laws.
Respondent clearly strayed from the
well-trodden path when he grossly misapplied the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure. (Citations omitted)
As regards
the other charges, the OCA dismissed them for complainants’ failure to adduce
sufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations.
The Report
and Recommendation of the OCA are sustained.
There is no
merit in respondent’s supposition that Grave Coercion is an offense not subject
to preliminary investigation because
the minimum penalty imposable for the said offense, which is six months and one
day, falls short of the minimum penalty of four years, two months and one day
required by the Rules. The OCA correctly
applied San Agustin v. People.[6] Certainly, the need for a preliminary investigation
under Sec. 1 in relation to Sec. 8 of Rule 112 of the Rules depends upon the imposable
penalty for the crime charged in the complaint or information filed and
not upon the imposable penalty for the offense which may be found to have been
committed by the accused after a preliminary investigation. In the case of Grave Coercion, the Revised Penal Code provides a penalty of
prision correccional or anywhere
between six months and one day to six years; thus, a preliminary investigation
must still be held since there is a possibility that the complainants would
stand to suffer the maximum penalty imposable for the offense. The purpose of a preliminary investigation is
to protect the innocent from hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecutions, from
an unnecessary open and public accusation of a crime, and from the trouble,
expense and anxiety of a trial. It also protects
the State from a useless and expensive litigation. Above all, it is a part of the guarantees of
freedom and fair play.[7]
Notably, however, by the time the criminal complaint of Dr. Yanga against
herein complainants was filed on January 3, 2006, respondent was already
without authority to conduct preliminary investigation since effective
October 3, 2005, judges of Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial
Courts are no longer authorized to conduct the same, pursuant to A.M. No.
05-8-26-SC (Re: Amendment of Rules 112
and 114 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure by Removing the Conduct of
Preliminary Investigation from Judges of the First Level Courts).[8] The appropriate action of respondent,
therefore, should have been to immediately refer the complaint to the Office of
the Provincial Prosecutor of Bulacan so that a preliminary investigation could
proceed with reasonable dispatch. His issuance of a subpoena directing
complainants to appear before the court on
Meanwhile, as to the impropriety purportedly
committed by respondent in his own chamber, the OCA rightly found that
complainants failed to provide specific details that would validate any misuse
or abuse of government funds and/or facilities.
Nonetheless, it is opportune to remind respondent as well as other trial
court judges, who are the “front-liners” in the promotion of the people's faith
in the judiciary, of the directives embodied in the following administrative
circulars:
1.
Administrative Circular (A.C.) No. 3-92 (Prohibition against Use of Halls of Justice
for Residential or Commercial Purposes)[9]
– All judges and court personnel are reminded that the Halls of Justice may be
used only for purposes directly related to the functioning and operation of the
courts of justice, and may not be devoted to any other use, least of all as
residential quarters of the judges or court personnel, or for carrying on
therein any trade or profession. Attention is drawn to this Court’s ruling in
A.M. No. RTJ-89-327 (Nellie Kelly Austria
v. Judge Singuat Guerra) whereby we declared that the use of the court’s
premises inevitably degrades the honor and dignity of the court in addition to
exposing judicial records to danger of loss or damage.
2.
A.C. No. 01-99 (Enhancing the Dignity of Courts as Temples of Justice and Promoting
Respect for their Official and Employees)[10]
– Considering the courts as temples of justice, their dignity and sanctity
must, at all times, be preserved and enhanced. In inspiring public respect for
the justice system, court officials and employees are directed, among others,
never to use their offices as a residence or for any other purpose than for
court or judicial functions.
3.
A.C. No. 09-99 (Banning Smoking and Selling of Goods within Court Houses and Offices)[11] – Conformably with A.C. No. 01-99, this circular disallowed, among others,
within court houses and, more specifically, session
halls and offices of court officials and personnel, the selling of goods of any
kind, especially by persons who are not court employees.
In fine, as
the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the
Philippine Judiciary[12]
mandates, judges should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in
all of their activities. They should not
use or lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance their private
interests, or those of a member of their family or of anyone else, nor shall
they convey or permit others to convey the impression that anyone is in a
special position improperly to influence them in the performance of judicial
duties.[13]
WHEREFORE, respondent Judge LAURO BERNARDO, MTC, Bocaue, Bulacan, is found GUILTY of gross ignorance of the law
and basic rules of procedure and is hereby FINED
in the amount of P20,000, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act in the
future shall be dealt with more severely.
Let a copy of this Decision be
attached to the personnel record of respondent in the Office of the
Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator.
SO ORDERED.
ADOLFO
S. AZCUNA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
Chairperson
ANTONIO T.
CARPIO RENATO C. CORONA
Associate
Justice
Associate Justice
TERESITA J.
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
[1] A.M.
No. RTJ 91-657,
[2] Paragraph
2 of Section 1, Rule 112 provides:
SECTION 1. Preliminary investigation defined; when required. – x x x x.
Except
as provided in Section 6 of this Rule, a preliminary investigation is required
to be conducted before the filing of a compliant or information for an offense
where the penalty prescribed by law is at least four (4) years, two (2) months
and one (1) day without regard to the fine.
[3] Sec. 3 (a) of Rule 112 states:
SEC. 3. Procedure.– The preliminary investigation shall be
conducted in the following manner:
(a) The complaint shall state the address of the respondent and shall be
accompanied by the affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses, as well as
other supporting documents to establish probable cause. They shall be in such
number of copies as there are respondents, plus two (2) copies for the official
file. The affidavits shall be subscribed and sworn to before any prosecutor or
government official authorized to administer oath, or, in their absence or
unavailability, before a notary public, each of whom must certify that he
personally examined the affiants and that he is satisfied that they voluntarily
executed and understood their affidavits.
while Sec. 8 (b) of Rule 112
provides:
Sec. 8. Cases not requiring a preliminary investigation nor covered by
the Rule on Summary Procedure. –
x x x x x x x x
x
(b) If filed with the Municipal Trial Court. – If the complaint or information is filed with the Municipal Trial
Court or Municipal Circuit Trial Court for an offense covered by this section,
the procedure in section 3 (a) of this Rule shall be observed. If within ten
(10) days after the filing of the complaint or information, the judge finds no
probable cause after personally evaluating the evidence, or after personally
examining in writing and under oath the complainant and his witnesses in the
form of searching questions and answers, he shall dismiss the same. He may,
however, require the submission of additional evidence, within ten (10) days
from notice, to determine further the existence of probable cause. If the judge
still finds no probable cause despite the additional evidence, he shall, within
ten (10) days from its submission or expiration of said period, dismiss the
case. When he finds probable cause, he shall issue a warrant of arrest, or a
commitment order if the accused had already been arrested, and hold him for
trial. However, if the judge is satisfied that there is no necessity for
placing the accused under custody, he may issue summons instead of a warrant of
arrest.
[4] Now Sec. 8 (b) of the Rules, as
amended by A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC (Supra).
[5] Sec. 3 Rule 110 states:
Sec. 3. Complaint defined. – A complaint is a sworn written statement
charging a person with an offense, subscribed by the offended party, any peace
officer, or other public officer charged with the enforcement of the law
violated.
[6] G.R. No. 158211,
[7] R.R. Paredes v. Calilung, G.R. No. 156055,
[8] See Martinez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 168827, April 13, 2007, 521
SCRA 176, 191; Verzosa v. Contreras,
A.M. No. MTJ-06-1636,
[9] Issued on
[10] Effective on
[11] Effective on
[12] A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC, effective
[13] Canon 4, Sections 1 and 8.