A.M. No. MTJ-03-1501




Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT SECOND DIVISION A.M. No. MTJ-03-1501. March 14, 2005 JAIME LIM CO, Complainant, vs. JUDGE RUBEN R. PLATA, MTCC, BRANCH 1, SANTIAGO CITY, Respondents. D E C I S I O N CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: Jaime Lim Co filed before this Court a Complaint,¹ dated 13 May 2002, against Hon. Ruben R. Plata, the Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 1 of Santiago City, Isabela, for gross partiality, serious misconduct, and inefficiency in office. Respondent Judge filed his Comment² and Additional Comment³ on the said Complaint, dated 11 September 2002 and 2 April 2003, respectively. On 09 July 2003, this Court resolved to re-docket the case as a regular administrative matter⁴ and to refer the administrative matter to Executive Judge Fe Albano Madrid of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Santiago City, Isabela, for investigation, report, and recommendation.⁵ Counsel for the respondent Judge, Atty. Emerito Agcaoili, however, moved for the inhibition of Executive Judge Madrid from hearing the administrative matter since she was supposedly a bosom friend of Eva T. Co, the wife of complainant Co.⁶ Executive Judge Madrid decided to grant the motion and inhibit herself because she believed that it would be hard to dispel the suspicion that she might be prejudiced against the respondent Judge just because his counsel, Atty. Agcaoili, filed a previous administrative case against her.⁷ Thus, this Court designated Executive Judge Bonifacio T. Ong of RTC, Branch 24 of Echague, Isabela, to investigate the administrative matter in place of Executive Judge Madrid.⁸ In his Report,⁹ dated 19 May 2004, the investigating Judge made the following findings and recommendations on the administrative matter: (1) respondent Judge was guilty of negligence rather than partiality, and should be meted a fine of ₱1,000; (2) respondent Judge was culpable of simple misconduct, instead of gross misconduct, and should pay a fine of ₱1,000; and (3) the charge of inefficiency against respondent Judge should be dismissed for lack of merit. After reviewing the Report of the investigating Judge, dated 19 May 2004, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) made its own findings and recommendations in its Memorandum,¹⁰ dated 12 October 2004, summarized as follows: (1) adopting the recommendation of the investigating Judge that respondent Judge was not guilty of partiality, but of simple negligence, and imposing the penalty of censure; (2) finding that although respondent Judge was not guilty of gross misconduct, he still failed to avoid the appearance of impropriety, for which he should be reprimanded with a warning that a repetition of the same shall be dealt with more severely; and (3) dismissing the charge of inefficiency in office for lack of merit. I The Charge of Gross Partiality Complainant Co was the private offended party in Criminal Cases No. 1-4210 and No. 1-4211, filed against spouses Milagros and Jose Villaceran, respectively, for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, otherwise known as the Bouncing Checks Law. The accused Villacerans, in the said criminal cases, allegedly issued separately two postdated checks, each for the amount of ₱1,000,000, payable to complainant Co, which were subsequently dishonored by the drawee banks. The two criminal cases were raffled to Santiago City, MTCC, Br. I, presided over by the respondent Judge. Respondent Judge issued a Warrant of Arrest for the accused Villacerans and fixed their bail at ₱100,000 each, as recommended by the Office of the City Prosecutor. Before the warrant of arrest could be served upon them, the accused Villacerans voluntarily appeared before the respondent Judge and separately filed Applications for Bail. Respondent Judge granted bail to the accused Villacerans in the reduced amount of ₱50,000 each. By virtue of the property bonds posted by the accused Villacerans, respondent Judge recalled the Warrant of Arrest issued against them. Complainant Co charged respondent Judge with gross partiality by pointing out the following irregularities in the Applications for Bail filed by the accused Villacerans, and the grant thereof by the respondent Judge, which allegedly demonstrated respondent Judge’s gross partiality for the said accused: 1. The Applications for Bail failed to state the amount of bail applied for and the exact date of application. 2. A duplicate of the Application for Bail of accused Milagros Villaceran was signed by respondent Judge himself. 3. The Applications for Bail were not properly received by the Santiago City MTCC Br. I. 4. Respondent Judge signed an undated Order, reducing the amount of bail from the original amount of ₱100,000 each to ₱50,000 each, even though the accused Villacerans did not file any Application to Reduce Bail. 5. The Order signed by the respondent Judge for the recall of the Warrant of Arrest for the accused Villacerans again failed to state important information such as the values of the property bonds posted, and the time and date of approval of the said property bonds. According to complainant Co, respondent Judge purposely left blank the values of the property bonds in the above-mentioned documents because he was aware of the insufficiency of the property bonds posted by the accused Villacerans. The property bonds posted by the accused Villacerans, covered by Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs) No. 263647 and No. 264847, had assessed values of only ₱6,200 and ₱6,900, respectively. The values of the said property bonds failed to comply even with the reduced amount of bail, fixed by respondent Judge himself, at ₱50,000 for each of the accused. 6. Only upon the insistence of complainant Co did respondent Judge order the accused Villacerans to post additional bail bonds. The accused Villacerans complied with the order by posting Surety Bonds No. 25746 and No. 25747, dated 20 June 2000, in the amount of ₱40,000 each, and issued by Wellington Insurance Company, Inc. (WICI). Said surety bonds, however, were good for only one year. During the joint hearing conducted on 06 December 2001 of Criminal Cases No. 1-4210 and No. 1-4211, the private prosecutor, Atty. Dionisio E. Bala, Jr., informed the respondent Judge that the said surety bonds had already expired. He also questioned the present standing of WICI as a bonding company duly accredited by the Supreme Court, considering that the certification submitted before the Santiago City MTCC Br. I was dated 1999. Atty. Bala thus requested the respondent Judge to order the arrest of the accused Villacerans until they were able to post new bonds. Respondent Judge refused to order the arrest of the accused Villacerans and merely said that, "[t]he Court will look into that." 7. Complainant Co observed that accused Milagros Villaceran would often go in and out of the respondent Judge’s chambers before and after court hearing. Convinced that the respondent Judge was biased and sympathetic to the accused Villacerans, complainant Co filed a motion¹¹ for the respondent Judge to inhibit himself from Criminal Cases No. 1-4210 and No. 1-4211. In his Order,¹² dated 21 February 2002, the respondent Judge granted complainant Co’s Motion to Inhibit "[s]o as not to erode the public’s faith in the capability of the Court to render fair and impartial justice without the element of suspicion or bias." Despite having inhibited himself from Criminal Cases No. 1-4210 and No. 1-4211, respondent Judge maintained that he had not been partial and biased in favor of the accused Villacerans to the detriment of complainant Co, who was the private offended party in the said criminal cases. According to the respondent Judge, the accused Villacerans appeared at the Santiago City, MTCC, Br. I, before the Warrant of Arrest could be served upon them. The accused Villacerans manifested that they came to learn about the criminal cases filed against them and they wanted to post bail. The accused Villacerans pleaded with the respondent Judge for the reduction of the amount of bail bond, which respondent Judge approved. The bail bond for each of the accused was originally fixed at ₱100,000. Respondent Judge agreed to reduce the bail bond to ₱50,000 each. Since the accused Villacerans did not have enough cash, they instead offered two pieces of their real property, located in the Municipality of Echague, Isabela, as property bonds. Respondent Judge asked the accused Villacerans to file Applications for Bail so that he could act on them officially. When the accused Villacerans informed him that they did not yet have a lawyer, respondent Judge instructed them to request for the usual form of an Application for Bail from his own staff. The accused Villacerans, however, prevailed upon respondent Judge’s staff to do more than just provide the required form, but also to help the accused Villacerans prepare their Applications for Bail, the Property Bond Form, and other supporting documents. The respondent Judge’s staff immediately submitted the prepared documents to respondent Judge for his signature. Addressing the alleged irregularities in the Applications for Bail of the accused Villacerans and his grant thereof, respondent Judge explained in his Comment, dated 11 September 2002, that: 1.10. Upon verifying that the accused have accomplished all the necessary documents in relation to their property bond and have submitted the originals of the Transfer Certificate of Title to their properties, Judge Plata approved the bail for property bond at ₱50,000.00 each. a. Judge Plata then signed the order for the recall of their warrant of arrest and accordingly returned the papers to his staff for further processing and promulgation, as it is the usual job of the clerical staff. b. Judge Plata was not aware that one of the papers that he had signed was one of the applications for bail of Milagros Villaceran until he received a copy of the complaint of Mr. Jaime Lim Co. c. Judge Plata was likewise not aware that his staff failed to completely fill up all the necessary data in the forms in accordance with his instructions prior to filing them. d. Judge Plata had to contend with the volume of work as presiding/executive judge of MTCC Br. 1 and Br. 2 of Santiago City and that of the MTC Cordon, Isabela.¹³ This Court upholds the findings of both the investigating Judge and the OCA that the above-stated facts demonstrated the negligence of the respondent Judge rather than his gross partiality. As stated in the OCA Memorandum, dated 12 October 2004: We find that respondent Judge was remiss in scrutinizing the documents which he signed. We agree with the investigating Judge’s observation that respondent was negligent in this aspect. That his signature above the printed name of the accused was made inadvertently is credible as it would be the height of folly if he deliberately signed the bail for and in behalf of the accused.¹⁴ Given that the documents herein had been prepared by his staff, respondent Judge had the responsibility of reviewing the said documents when submitted to him, before affixing his signature thereon. Respondent Judge’s signature carried a lot of weight and could turn an ordinary piece of paper into an official act of the court, thus, he should have checked, and if necessary, double-checked, whether the forms were properly filled-out and the information therein were correct, in order to avoid similar controversies in the future. Respondent Judge defended his decision to reduce the bail bond from ₱100,000 to ₱50,000 for each of the accused Villacerans as a legitimate exercise of his judicial discretion. According to respondent Judge, Section 9, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, allowed the reduction of the amount of bail upon certain overriding considerations, i.e., (a) financial ability of the accused to give bail; (b) nature and circumstance of the offense; (c) penalty of the offense charged; and (d) character and reputation of the accused. Respondent Judge also invoked paragraph 2(o) of the Department of Justice (DOJ) Circular No. 89, dated 29 August 2000, otherwise known as The 2000 Bail Bond Guide, which stated that: For violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, bail shall be P2,000.00 for the first P40,000.00 face value of the check and an additional P1,000.00 for every P10,000.00 in excess of P40,000.00, but bail shall not exceed P30,000.00. The two checks involved in Criminal Cases No. 1-4210 and No. 1-4211, allegedly issued by the accused Villacerans, each had a face value of ₱1,000,000. Respondent Judge argued that the reduced amount of bail bond, amounting to ₱50,000 for each of the accused Villacerans, was still substantial, considering that he could have further reduced the said amount to ₱30,000, as provided under The 2000 Bail Bond Guide. Worth reiterating herein is the finding of the OCA, in its Memorandum, dated 12 October 2004, which reads as follows – As reported by the Investigating Judge, respondent was negligent in reducing *motu proprio* the bail recommended by the public prosecutor not because the accused are not entitled to it but because respondent failed to comply with the time tested safeguard against arbitrariness. As held in AM No. MTJ-00-1286 (21 January 2002), "[I]n all cases, whether bail is a matter of right or discretion, notify the prosecutor of the hearing of the application for bail or require him to submit his recommendation." Respondent’s infraction is procedural in nature, that is, reducing the bail without the benefit of hearing. The court in AM No. RTJ-03-1767, 3-28-03 enunciated that under the present rules, a hearing is required in granting bail whether it is a matter of right or discretion…¹⁵ The rights of the accused Villacerans to bail and to the reduction thereof to a reasonable amount were not questioned herein; rather, at issue was the manner the reduction of the bail was granted. In the cases of Te v. Perez¹⁶ and Docena-Caspe v. Bugtas,¹⁷ referred to by the OCA in its Memorandum, dated 12 October 2004, this Court held that there should be a hearing before granting bail, whether bail was a matter of right or discretion; and the Judge should notify the prosecutor of the date of the hearing or require the prosecutor to submit his recommendation. Such procedural requirements were laid down by jurisprudence precisely to avoid accusations of arbitrariness against the Judges in fixing the amount of the bail for the accused, as what happened herein. Respondent Judge was negligent for failing to comply with a very elementary rule of criminal procedure, and this Court believes that such negligence actually merits a stiffer penalty than those recommended by the investigating Judge (a fine of ₱1,000) and OCA (censure). This Court therefore imposes upon respondent Judge a fine of ₱2,000. Respondent Judge approved the provisional release of the accused Villacerans upon acceptance of their property bonds because respondent Judge believed that, notwithstanding the assessed values stated in their respective Tax Declarations, the two pieces of agricultural lands covered by TCTs No. 263647 and No. 264847 had an area of 1.0014 and 1.0127 hectares, respectively, which were actually worth more than the ₱100,000 bail bond for both of the accused Villacerans. At any rate, respondent Judge, upon the insistence of complainant Co, required the accused Villacerans to post additional bail bonds. The accused Villacerans complied with the said order by posting the WICI surety bonds. As for the respondent Judge’s refusal to order the arrest of the accused Villacerans after the expiration of the WICI surety bonds, respondent Judge was of the opinion that once a surety bond was posted by an accused, the same remained effective until it was ordered released by the court. He further maintained that in case of nonpayment of the premium on the surety bond, it was up to the bondsmen to complain and to request for the release of the bond upon surrendering the body of the accused. Nonetheless, in order to address the concerns of the private prosecutor, Atty. Bala, respondent Judge issued an Order,¹⁸ dated 20 December 2001, directing WICI, the bonding company, to submit an updated certification of good standing from the Supreme Court. However, even before WICI could comply with the said Order, dated 20 December 2001, complainant Co already filed a Motion to Inhibit Presiding Judge¹⁹ on 21 January 2002. Respondent Judge, in his Order,²⁰ dated 21 February 2002, granted the said Motion. Respondent Judge, therefore, had no more opportunity to resolve the issue concerning the expiration of the WICI surety bonds. In the words used by the investigating Judge and the OCA, the said issue was "overtaken" by the filing of the Motion to Inhibit. Respondent Judge cannot be held accountable when his failure to fully resolve the matter was impeded by subsequent events in the criminal cases, instigated by complainant Co himself. II The Charge of Grave Misconduct Complainant Co also accused respondent Judge of grave misconduct because the respondent Judge had allegedly demanded tikoy from complainant Co in consideration for respondent Judge’s voluntary inhibition from Criminal Cases No. 1-4210 and No. 1-4211; and when complainant Co was unable to give tikoy, respondent Judge asked for ₱500 instead. According to complainant Co, he never received a copy of the respondent Judge’s Order, dated 21 February 2002, granting his Motion to Inhibit, so on 07 March 2002, he went to see the respondent Judge at Santiago City, MTCC, Br. I, to personally follow-up on the status of the said Motion. He did not find respondent Judge at the office of Santiago City, MTCC, Br. I, but instead, saw him at the adjoining office of Santiago City, MTCC, Br. II.²¹ Respondent Judge informed him that the Motion had already been approved. Thereafter, respondent Judge allegedly told complainant Co, "Magkaibigan pa tayo… And to prove that you still love me, give me tikoy." When complainant Co replied that he did not know where to buy tikoy, respondent Judge supposedly said, "Magbigay ka ng pera, kami na ang bibili." Complainant Co then handed ₱500 to respondent Judge.²² Respondent Judge disputed the charge of gross misconduct against him. According to the respondent Judge, he had already issued the Order inhibiting himself from hearing Criminal Cases No. 1-4210 and No. 1-4211 on 21 February 2002, or almost two weeks before he saw complainant Co on 07 March 2002; hence, he did not need to demand for anything from complainant Co in exchange for granting the latter’s Motion to Inhibit. Records of Criminal Cases No. 1-4210 and No. 1-4211 were transferred to Santiago City, MTCC, Br. II, the very same day. Respondent Judge submitted affidavits and oral testimonies of several witnesses, including court officers and staff members of Santiago City, MTCC, Br. I and Br. II, to support his version of the events that transpired on 07 March 2002, during complainant Co’s visit. Among respondent Judge’s witnesses was Mr. Roger Ruma, the former Branch Clerk of Court of Santiago City, MTCC, Br. II. On 07 March 2002, respondent Judge was at Santiago City, MTCC, Br. II, talking to Mr. Ruma, when complainant Co intruded to inquire about his Motion to Inhibit. Mr. Ruma recounted the exchange between respondent Judge and complainant Co as follows: Jaime Co Judge, anong nangyari sa Motion ko? Judge Plata : Nandon na sa Branch 2, napirmahan ko na, matagal na. Jaime Co : Nandon na pala, sige. He looks glad. Judge Plata : Oh Jaime trabaho lang yan; Magkaibigan pa ba tayo? Jaime Co : Oo naman! Judge Plata : Papaano ko malaman kung mahal mo kami? Jaime Co : Eh di magpabili ako ng tikoy! Judge Plata : Huwag! Bawal, nagbibiro lang ako.²³ The conversation was interrupted at this point by a court staff member who informed the respondent Judge that there was a telephone call for him. After respondent Judge left the room to answer the telephone call, complainant Co gave ₱500 to another court staff member who used the money to buy pizza when he could not find any tikoy. The court staff and student trainees shared the pizza among themselves. Respondent Judge also discredited the two witnesses presented by complainant Co, namely Eugenio Taguba and Maripi A. Apolonio, both employees of Santiago City, MTCC, Br. II. Respondent Judge alleged that Mr. Taguba and Ms. Apolonio had an ax to grind against him. Respondent Judge complained to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) that staff members of Santiago City, MTCC, Br. II, were gambling in the court premises during office hours, instigating the NBI to conduct a raid of Santiago City, MTCC, Br. II. In the raid, which happened at around 3:00 p.m., the NBI actually caught several staff members, including Mr. Taguba and Ms. Apolonio, in the act of gambling. An administrative case was filed against the staff members caught in the raid, wherein they were subsequently found guilty by this Court of simple misconduct, and were meted the penalty of suspension for one month and one day, without pay.²⁴ Respondent Judge, in addition, presented evidence that during the time he was talking to complainant Co, there was an on-going session at Santiago City, MTCC, Br. II, and Mr. Taguba and Ms. Apolonio were in the courtroom attending to their duties. Thus, they could not have been present in the office of Mr. Ruma where complainant Co and respondent Judge were talking. Furthermore, it could be expected that Ms. Apolonio would support complainant Co because he was her Ninong or godfather at her wedding.²⁵ Evidence on the issue of gross misconduct weighs heavily in favor of the innocence of the respondent Judge. The respondent Judge’s version of the events that transpired on 07 March 2002 was corroborated by a greater number of witnesses whose characters were not put into question. They generally appeared to be disinterested parties to the case with no reason or motive to protect respondent Judge. Respondent Judge was also able to present documentary evidence to further support the affidavits and oral testimonies of his witnesses. Moreover, this Court agrees in the findings of the OCA in its Memorandum dated 12 October 2004, that: It is hard to believe that respondent would risk his reputation and position as a judge by asking tikoy in front of other people. Besides, the case had already ceased to be in his sala and had already been transferred to the other branch long before complainant had a talk with respondent. Also, it must be considered that said conversation was cut short when respondent was called to answer a phone call, that ceased him to control (sic) the events that later on ensued.²⁶ This Court, however, also agrees with the OCA that respondent Judge committed an indiscretion when he commented to complainant Co, "Papaano ko malaman kung mahal mo kami?" Although respondent Judge made the comment jokingly, it was also very understandable how complainant Co had construed it as an insinuation to do some act or to give something to prove that he had no hard feelings towards respondent Judge. For making such a comment, respondent Judge violated Canon 2 of the then Code of Judicial Ethics, which provided that, "A Judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities."²⁷ Since respondent Judge occupied an exalted position in the administration of justice, he should pay a high price for the honor bestowed upon him; and his private, as well as his official, conduct must at all times be free from the appearance of impropriety.²⁸ Although respondent Judge cannot be enjoined from sharing jokes, he must be more prudent in this regard. As a Judge, respondent herein is the subject of constant scrutiny. He must freely and willingly impose upon himself certain restrictions, which might be viewed as burdensome on an ordinary citizen, because he must conduct himself in a way that is consistent with the dignity of his judicial office.²⁹ III The Charge of Inefficiency in Office As to his charge of inefficiency in office, complainant Co alleged that Criminal Cases No. 1-4210 and No. 1-4211 had been pending for a long time before Santiago City, MTCC, Br. I. Respondent Judge did not assert his authority to try and resolve these cases as soon as possible. The cases were often called at 11:30 a.m., just to be reset for lack of material time to hear the cases. This Court finds no basis for this charge of inefficiency against respondent Judge. Respondent Judge had satisfactorily explained in his Memorandum,³⁰ dated 04 May 2004, that the delay in the resolution of Criminal Cases No. 1-4210 and No. 1-4211 were attributable to reasons other than respondent Judge’s alleged inefficiency. Respondent Judge was present during all the scheduled hearings of the said criminal cases. The records of the criminal cases supported respondent Judge’s claim that hearings of the cases were reset three times because of the absence of the private prosecutor; five times because of the absence of the public prosecutor; and two times because of the absence of the counsel for the accused.³¹ At other times, respondent Judge was unable to hear the said criminal cases since there were at least 30 criminal cases set for hearing on every hearing date. Due to the sheer number of cases, there was barely enough time to call all the cases in the calendar, much less, to hear the testimony of the witnesses in all of the cases scheduled. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, this Court finds that: (1) the respondent Judge is guilty of simple negligence for his failure to scrutinize the documents he had signed and to follow the proper procedure for fixing the amount of bail, for which he is meted a fine of ₱2,000.00; (2) the respondent Judge is guilty of violating Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Ethics for his failure to avoid the appearance of impropriety, for which he is reprimanded with a warning that a repetition of the same shall be dealt with more severely; and (3) the charge of inefficiency in office against respondent Judge to be without basis and is hereby dismissed. SO ORDERED. Puno, (Chairman), Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr., and Tinga, JJ., concur. Footnotes ¹ Rollo, pp. 2-4. ² Ibid., pp. 39-54, ³ Ibid., pp. 190-197. ⁴ Ibid., p. 255. ⁵ Ibid., p. 254. ⁶ Ibid., p. 261. ⁷ Ibid., p. 256. ⁸ Ibid., p. 274. ⁹ Ibid., pp. 405-417. ¹⁰ Ibid., pp. 471-480. ¹¹ Ibid., pp. 142-143. ¹² Ibid., p. 29. ¹³ Ibid., p. 41. ¹⁴ Ibid., p. 477. ¹⁵ Id. ¹⁶ 424 Phil. 876 (2002). ¹⁷ A.M. No. RTJ-03-1767, 28 March 2003, 400 SCRA 37. ¹⁸ Supra, note 15, p. 85. ¹⁹ Supra, note 11. ²⁰ Supra, note 12. ²¹ TSN, 10 March 2004, pp. 87-91. ²² Id. ²³ Supra, note 21, p. 133. ²⁴ Albano-Madrid v. Apolonio, et al., A.M. No. P-01-1517, 07 February 2003, 397 SCRA 120. ²⁵ TSN, 10 March 2004, pp. 60-61. ²⁶ Supra, note 23, p. 479. ²⁷ Now Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, which became effective on 1 June 2004. Pertinent provisions thereof read as follows: CANON 4 PROPRIETY Propriety and the appearance of propriety are essential to the performance of all the activities of a judge. SECTION 1. Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their activities. ²⁸ Jugueta v. Boncaros, A.M. No. 440-CFI, 30 September 1974, 60 SCRA 27. ²⁹ Supra, note 27, Canon 4, Section 2. ³⁰ Supra, note 26, pp. 337-389. ³¹ Rollo, pp. 60-76. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation