In the recent case of JUDGE BONIFACIO SANZ MACEDA, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, LAS PIÑAS CITY, BRANCH 275 vs. LOIDA M. GENABE, LEGAL, A.M. No. 07-2-93-RTC, October 29, 2009, the Philippine Supreme Court made the following doctrinal pronouncements in re: the limited extent of the disciplinary powers of an executive judge, thus:
1. Judge Maceda suspended a court personnel directly under his supervision by relying on the authority laid down in Article II, Section A(2)(a) of Circular No. 30-91 which provides:
X x x.
2. Lower Court Personnel
a. Light Offenses –
(1) Disciplinary matters involving light offenses as defined under the Civil Service law (Administrative Code of 1987 and the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (Rep. Act. 6713) where the penalty is reprimand, suspension for not more than thirty days, or a fine not exceeding thirty days' salary, and as classified in Civil Service Resolution No. 30, Series of 1989, shall be acted upon by the appropriate supervisory official of the lower court concerned.
(2) The appropriate supervisory officials are the Presiding Justices/Presiding Judge of the lower collegiate courts and the Executive Judges of the trial courts with respect to the personnel of their respective courts, except those directly under the individual Justices and Judges, in which case, the latter shall be their appropriate supervisory officials.
(3) The complaint for light offenses whether filed with the Court, the Office of the Court Administrator, or the lower court shall be heard and decided by the appropriate supervisory official concerned. x x x
2. The reliance of Judge Maceda on the provisions of this circular is misplaced. Judge Maceda found Genabe to have neglected her duty in November 2006.
The guidelines in effect at that time were already those found in A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC, which took effect in 2004 or two years before the administrative charge of neglect of duty was made against Genabe. Judge Maceda should have applied these new guidelines and not Circular No. 30-91.
3. Section 1, Chapter VIII of A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC, which provides the guidelines for administrative discipline of court employees over light offenses, states:
X x x.
SECTION. 1. Disciplinary jurisdiction over light offenses.– The Executive Judge shall have authority to act upon and investigate administrative complaints involving light offenses as defined under the Civil Service Law and Rules (Administrative Code of 1987), and the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (Republic Act No. 6713), where the penalty is reprimand, suspension for not more than thirty (30) days, or a fine not exceeding thirty (30) days’ salary, and as classified in pertinent Civil Service resolutions or issuances, filed by (a) a judge against a court employee, except lawyers, who both work in the same station within the Executive Judge’s area of administrative supervision; or (b) a court employee against another court employee, except lawyers, who both work in the same station within the Executive Judge’s area of administrative supervision.
In the preceding instances, the Executive Judge shall conduct the necessary inquiry and submit to the Office of the Court Administrator the results thereof with a recommendation as to the action to be taken thereon, including the penalty to be imposed, if any, within thirty (30) days from termination of said inquiry. At his/her discretion, the Executive Judge may delegate the investigation of complaints involving light offenses to any of the Presiding Judges or court officials within his/her area of administrative supervision.
In the case of a complaint (a) filed against court employees who are lawyers, or (b) filed by private complainants against court employees, lawyers and non-lawyers alike, the same shall be forwarded by the Executive Judge to the Office of the Court Administrator for appropriate action and disposition. x x x (Emphasis supplied)
4. The guidelines clearly provide that the authority of judges to discipline erring court personnel, under their supervision and charged with light offenses, is limited to conducting an inquiry only. After such inquiry, the executive judge is required to submit to the OCA the results of the investigation and give a recommendation as to what action should be taken. An executive judge does not have the authority to act upon the results of the inquiry and thereafter, if the court employee is found guilty, unilaterally impose a penalty, as in this case. It is only the Supreme Court which has the power to find the court personnel guilty or not for the offense charged and then impose a penalty.
5. In the present case, Judge Maceda suspended Genabe for the offense of neglect of duty. Under Section 52(B), Rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, simple neglect of duty is a less grave offense which carries a penalty of one month and one day to six months suspension for the first offense. Under A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC, an executive judge may only conduct an investigation for all offenses. After the investigation, the executive judge is mandated to refer the necessary disciplinary action to this Court for appropriate action.
