MALACAÑAN PALACE
MANILA
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES
[ Administrative Order No. 109, September 14, 1964 ]
CONSIDERING MR. ERNESTO P. FURAGGANAN RESIGNED AND SEPARATED FROM OFFICE AS MUNICIPAL JUDGE OF BUGUEY, CAGAYAN
This is an administrative proceeding instituted by the District Judge of Cagayan against Mr. Ernesto P. Furagganan, municipal judge of Buguey, Cagayan, on the following charges:
(1) Undue delay in acting on Criminal Case No. 654 of his court for murder which was filed on June 11, 1956, but remained without action. This delay was brought to the attention of the District Judge in a letter dated February 16, 1961, from one of the accused, a national prisoner, stating that the records of the case had been elevated to the Court of First Instance of Cagayan and requesting that it be tried as soon as possible. Despite several inquires and directives from the District Judge, respondent neither answered the same nor acted on the case.
(2) Undue delay in forwarding the bail bonds of the accused in Criminal Cases Nos. 3335-A and 3336-A of the Court of First Instance Cagayan, whose release was ordered by the respondent on July 5, 1961, without forwarding the bail bonds. Several directives from the Court of First Instance of Cagayan for the elevation of the bail bonds were ignored by respondent and complied with only after the District Judge had ordered the detention of the accused.
Respondent submitted his explanation to the foregoing charges and testified in his defense during the formal investigation conducted by the District Judge. He claimed that he had no more jurisdiction over Criminal Case No. 654, since he had turned over the records thereof to the Provincial Fiscal who allegedly told him to keep the same until the latter could go to Buguey for the town fiesta, as the fiscal himself would investigate the case; and that he simply approved the bail bonds of the accused in Criminal Cases Nos. 3335-A and 3336-A and signed the order of release, requiring the accused to be brought the following morning to his court in Buguey, since he had to verify the solvency of the bondsman.
After investigation, the District Judge found respondent guilty as charged and recommended that he be asked to resign and if he refuses or fails to do so, that he be dismissed. The Secretary of Justice concurred in the findings of the District Judge and recommended respondents dismissal from the service for cause.
The record shows that on February 16, 1961, a national prisoner wrote the Court of First Instance of Cagayan that the records of Criminal Case No. 654 of the Justice of the Peace Court (now Municipal Court) of Buguey had been forwarded already to the Court of First Instance of Cagayan and requested that the case be tried as soon as possible. On February 18, 1961, the court referred the letter of the prisoner to respondent and, not hearing from the latter, sent another letter on April 6, 1961, asking respondent for the status of Criminal Case No. 654.
On June 7, 1961, the Judicial Superintendent of the Department of Justice sent a telegram to the District Judge suggesting that respondent be directed to act on the criminal case against the prisoner. The next day, the District Judge wrote respondent quoting the telegram of the Judicial Superintendent, which was received by respondent on June 13, 1961. No action having been taken by the respondent on the criminal case against the prisoner, the court prepared the necessary order of commitment for the return of the prisoner to Bilibid Prisons.
The record further shows that in Criminal Cases Nos. 3335-A and 3336-A of the Court of First Instance of Cagayan three (3) persons were arrested by PC soldiers pursuant to the warrants of arrest issued by the court. In said warants the municipal judge of the place where the accused could be found was authorized to qualify the sureties in the bail bonds that the accused intended to file and to discharge the accused once the bail bonds were approved, but the bail bonds must be forwarded to the court. On July 5, 1961, respondent ordered the release of the three accused, but the bail bonds were not forwarded to the court; so the court sent a telegram asking respondent to forward the bail bonds to it. Respondent ignored the telegram, for which reason the court sent another letter asking him to send over the bail bonds of the defendants. Despite the letter, the bail bonds were not forwarded to the court. On July 29, 1961, the accused appeared for arraignment and the District Judge ordered their detention until their bail bonds were submitted to the court. Only then did respondent forward their bail bonds.
Respondent does not deny that he had not acted on Criminal Case No. 654 from the time of its filing with his court on June 11, 1956, although he claims that he has no jurisdiction thereon after the records had been sent to the Provincial Fiscal. If respondent had actually forwarded the case to the Provincial Fiscal, he would have done so in a formal communication, stating the basis of his action in accordance with the usual procedure. There is no written proof of the alleged delivery of the records to the Provincial Fiscal. It is apparent that while respondent had the records he never acted thereon. He did not even enter said Criminal Case No. 654 in his criminal docket. In other words, respondent sat on the case for more than five (5) years and, having received inquiries from the District Judge, he did not even care to answer the same. He is clearly responsible for the long delay of more than five (5) years suffered by the case in his court with the consequent serious prejudice to the parties and the administration of justice.
Wherefore, the judgment is revoked, and the Government Service Insurance System is absolved from Nicdaos claims. So ordered.1aшphi1
Likewise, respondent unnecessarily delayed the forwarding to the Court of First Instance of Cagayan of the bail bonds of the accused in Criminal Cases Nos. 3335-A and 3336-A of that Court, after he had signed the order of release. His explanation that he signed the order of release before he verified the solvency of the bondsman is, in itself, evidence of dereliction of duty. He should have first verified the sufficiency of the bail bond, since he very well knew that with his signing of the order of release the accused would be set free. His failure and/or refusal to elevate the bail bonds in accordance with the terms of the warrant of arrest and the several directives of the District Judge cannot be justified. As a matter of fact, respondent forwarded the bail bonds only after the District Judge had ordered the detention of the accused.
In unduly delaying the disposition of Criminal Case No. 654 and the elevation of the bail bonds of the accused in Criminal Cases No. 3335-A and 3336-A, respondent committed a rank violation of the sixth canon of judicial ethics that “he should be prompt in disposing of all matters submitted to him, remembering that justice delayed is often justice denied” (Adm. Or. No. 162, Dept. of Justice, dated Aug. 1, 1946) and deprived the accused of his constitutional right to a speedy trial (Sec.1/17), Art. III, Const.; Sec. 1/h, Rule 115, and Sec. 2, Rule 119, Rules of Court). Moreover, the undue delay on his part in elevating the bail bonds in accordance with the terms of the warrant of arrest constituted contumacious defiance of the lawful process of a superior court (Sec. 3, Rule 71, Rules of Court). Finally, in deliberately ignoring the several inquiries and directives of the District Judge, he committed gross insubordination and discourtesy to one having supervisory authority over him (Secs. 96 and 97, Rep. Act No. 296 as amended).
The investigating Judge also found that on several occasions respondent absented himself from office without leave for considerable periods of time, to the great prejudice of the service. Thus, after going on vacation leave from May 29 to June 10, 1959, he did not return to duty until September 1959, absenting himself without leave although requested to report immediately for duty. He was also absent without leave after going on vacation leave from November 21 to December 28, 1960, and from December 19, 1961, to January 22, 1962.
Respondents acts and behavior show that he was sadly remiss in the performance of his duties and that he lacks that sense of responsibility which a public officer, particularly a judge, should have. Sufficient grounds therefore exist for separating him from the service.
Wherefore, Mr. Ernesto P. Furagganan is hereby considered resigned and separated from office as Municipal Judge of Buguey, Cagayan.
Done in the City of Manila, this 14th day of September, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and sixty-four.
(Sgd.) DIOSDADO MACAPAGAL
President of the Philippines
By the President:
(Sgd.) JUAN S. CANCIO
Acting Assistant Executive Secretary
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
