In the case of AUREO G. BAYACA vs. JUDGE TRANQUILINO V. RAMOS, A.M. No. MTJ-07-1676, January 29, 2009, the Philippine Supreme Court, inter alia, held that respondent Judge was inexcusably negligent when he issued a Warrant of Arrest and Commitment to Final Sentence despite the deletion by the appellate court of that portion of the judgment imposing the penalty of imprisonment.
The Court stated that in the performance of his duties, respondent Judge failed to observe that diligence, prudence and circumspection which the law requires in the rendition of any public service. If only respondent Judge had exercised the requisite thoroughness and caution, he would have noted not only the modification of the monetary awards by the appellate court, but also the deletion of the penalty of imprisonment upon which the Warrant of Arrest and Commitment to Final Sentence that he signed was based, it added.
The complainant was the accused in a criminal case for arson through reckless imprudence. The case was raffled to the sala of the respondent Judge. After trial, respondent Judge found complainant guilty as charged and imposed upon him the penalty of imprisonment of four (4) months of arresto mayor as minimum and four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional as maximum with all the accessory penalties imposed by law and to pay costs and actual damages in the amount of P100,000.00.
Aggrieved, complainant appealed the case to the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC affirmed with modification the decision of the MCTC. It merely imposed a fine of Seventy-five pesos (Php75.00). It deleted the award of P100,000.00 as actual damages. Instead, the accused was directed to pay the offended parties the total sum of P25,000.00 as temperate damages.
Despite the deletion of the penalty of imprisonment in the RTC decision, respondent Judge issued a Warrant of Arrest and Commitment on Final Sentence which led to complainant’s incarceration.
Hence, the complainant filed an administrative case against the respondent judge, alleging that the latter acted without legal basis in ordering his detention, thus displaying bias, manifest partiality, incompetence in office, gross ignorance of the law, gross misconduct, dishonesty and grave abuse of authority and discretion.
In his counter-affidavit, respondent Judge clarified that his issuance of the warrant of arrest against herein complainant was a mistake done in good faith. He added that for almost sixteen (16) years it was the practice in his sala that before acting on a motion it passed through his Clerk of Court who studied the records to determine whether or not to grant it. If it would be granted, the Clerk of Court would then request the stenographer to type the order and thereafter, he would affix his initial for respondent Judge’s signature. This was the procedure that they followed in the instant case which was unfortunately the only instance that they committed a mistake. While he apologized to complainant and his parents, the respondent maintained that the matter was merely a case of simple negligence.
The respondent judge narrated that the civil case for damages previously filed against him by complainant had been dismissed by virtue of a compromise agreement. He stated the criminal complaint for unlawful arrest and serious illegal detention pending before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor was also dismissed after complainant filed an Affidavit of Desistance. He claimed that the administrative case was filed mainly to harass him when complainant discovered that he had filed for optional retirement as MCTC Judge. He informed the Court that he had been suffering from severe asthma and arthritis and had been bedridden and very sickly. He asked for assistance in facilitating the approval of his retirement benefits.
In its report, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found respondent Judge guilty of Negligence and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of Service. The report stated that in the discharge of the functions of his office, a judge must strive to act in a manner that puts him and his conduct above reproach and beyond suspicion. He must act with extreme care for his office indeed is laden with a heavy burden of responsibility. Hence, a judge was required to pore over all documents on which he affixes his signature notwithstanding his heavy caseload.
The OCA report stated that respondent Judge made a partial payment of P250,000.00 to the complainant with a promise to pay another P500,000.00 to be paid within two months from the date when the Acknowledgment Receipt of Amicable Settlement was executed. The act of respondent Judge in giving money in exchange for the withdrawal of civil, criminal and administrative case filed against him was highly improper, the OCA said. It was a well-settled rule that administrative case could not be the subject of amicable settlement. The filing of administrative complaint could not depend upon the whims and caprices of complainant and it cannot be rendered naught by the private concessions of the parties. Hence, the withdrawal of administrative complaint would not prevent the court from deciding the case since complainants were, in a real sense, only witnesses therein.
For legal research purposes of the visitors of this blog, in the abovecited case the Supreme Court made the following doctrinal pronouncements, which were basically a reiteration of applicable Philippine jurisprudence on judicial ethics. Thus:
X x x
We have repeatedly ruled in a number of cases that mere desistance or recantation by the complainant does not necessarily result in the dismissal of an administrative complaint against any member of the bench. The withdrawal of complaints cannot divest the Court of its jurisdiction nor strip it of its power to determine the veracity of the charges made and to discipline, such as the results of its investigation may warrant, an erring respondent. Administrative actions cannot depend on the will or pleasure of the complainant who may, for reasons of his own, condone what may be detestable. Neither can the Court be bound by the unilateral act of the complainant in a matter relating to its disciplinary power. The Court’s interest in the affairs of the judiciary is of paramount concern. For sure, public interest is at stake in the conduct and actuations of officials and employees of the judiciary, inasmuch as the various programs and efforts of this Court in improving the delivery of justice to the people should not be frustrated and put to naught by private arrangements between the parties as in the instant case.
Respondent Judge should not be allowed to capitalize on the Acknowledgement Receipt dated December 3, 2006 showing that complainant and his spouse had already agreed to amicably settle the cases they previously filed against him. Apparently, respondent Judge made a partial payment of P250,000.00 to the complainant with a promise to pay another P500,000.00 within two (2) months from the date when the said Acknowledgment Receipt was executed. This deplorable act of respondent Judge in giving money in exchange for the withdrawal of the cases filed against him by the complainant cannot be countenanced, being considered by law as an obstruction of justice.
X x x.
We hold that respondent Judge was inexcusably negligent when he issued a Warrant of Arrest and Commitment to Final Sentence despite the deletion by the appellate court of that portion of the judgment imposing the penalty of imprisonment. In the performance of his duties, respondent Judge failed to observe that diligence, prudence and circumspection which the law requires in the rendition of any public service. If only respondent Judge had exercised the requisite thoroughness and caution, he would have noted not only the modification of the monetary awards by the appellate court, but also the deletion of the penalty of imprisonment upon which the Warrant of Arrest and Commitment to Final Sentence that he signed was based.
Respondent Judge cannot pass on the blame to his Clerk of Court and/or Stenographer. A judge cannot take refuge behind the inefficiency or mismanagement of his very own court personnel. Certainly, a judge is responsible not only for the dispensation of justice but also for managing his court efficiently to ensure the prompt delivery of court services. In the discharge of the functions of his office, respondent Judge must strive to act in a manner that puts him and his conduct above reproach and beyond suspicion. He must act with extreme care for his office indeed is laden with a heavy burden of responsibility. Surely, a judge is enjoined to pore over all documents whereon he is required to affix his signature and give his official imprimatur. The negligence of respondent Judge in this case simply cannot be countenanced.
X x x.
Membership in the judiciary circumscribes one’s personal conduct and imposes upon him certain restrictions, the faithful observance of which is the price one has to pay for holding such a distinguished position. Accordingly, a magistrate of the law must comport himself in a manner that his conduct must be free of a whiff of impropriety, not only with respect to the performance of his official duties, but also to his behavior outside his sala and as a private individual. His conduct must be able to withstand the most searching public scrutiny, for the ethical principles and sense of propriety of a judge are essential to the preservation of the people’s faith in the judicial system lest public confidence in the judiciary would be eroded by the incompetent, irresponsible and negligent conduct of judges.
To recapitulate, we find respondent Judge’s act of issuing an order for the arrest of herein complainant, despite the deletion by the appellate court of that portion of the judgment imposing the penalty of imprisonment, an act of inexcusable negligence and conduct which is prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
X x x.
