View full case

OCA v. VS.JUDGE AUGUSTO SUMILANG

FACTS:

Respondents Judge Augusto Sumilang, Felicidad Malla, Edelita Lagmay, and Nieva Mercado, court employees of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pila, Laguna, were charged with misappropriating funds deposited by the plaintiff in Civil Case No. 858. The Office of Court Administrator issued a memorandum report on August 16, 1994, treating it as an administrative complaint. A second complaint was lodged against Malla for removing judicial records outside the court premises.

During the on-the-spot audit examination of the lower court's official cashbook and other documents, several anomalous transactions were discovered. One involved a manager's check deposited in the name of Teodorico Dizon in connection with Civil Case No. 858. Malla, who was the officer-in-charge at the time, admitted to depositing the amount of P240,000.00 at a bank but later admitted to lending portions of it to Lagmay, Mercado, and Mrs. Sumilang. Malla also used some of the money for personal purposes.

Lagmay and Mercado executed affidavits denying their involvement in the transaction. Mrs. Sumilang also denied any involvement. The Court found Judge Sumilang guilty of gross negligence for his failure to supervise his court personnel properly. It was not the first time he faced an administrative case. Malla's defense included the claim that she had permission to use the money and that her constitutional rights were violated when she was pressured to sign an affidavit admitting her misdeeds.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether respondents Judge Sumilang, Malla, Lagmay, and Mercado committed acts prejudicial to the service.

  2. Whether Judge Sumilang should be held accountable for the negligence of his court personnel.

  3. Whether Malla misappropriated funds entrusted to her.

RULING:

  1. The Court finds that respondents Judge Sumilang, Malla, Lagmay, and Mercado committed acts prejudicial to the service and should be held accountable.

  2. Judge Sumilang should be held accountable for the negligence of his court personnel. As the administrator of his court, he has the duty to supervise his court personnel and ensure the prompt and efficient dispatch of business in his court. His ignorance of the irregularities occurring in his own court constitutes a serious breach of judicial ethics.

  3. Malla misappropriated funds entrusted to her. She received P240,000.00 from Villarica instead of directing him to deposit the amount with the Municipal Treasurer. Malla's defense that Villarica allowed her to use the money does not hold weight without supporting evidence. Furthermore, her claim that her constitutional rights were violated in the signing of the affidavit admitting her misdeed is not valid.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Judges have the responsibility to supervise their court personnel and ensure the prompt and efficient dispatch of business in their court.

  • Ignorance of irregularities occurring in a judge's own court constitutes a serious breach of judicial ethics.

  • Court personnel should not receive payments made by litigants in relation to their cases in their personal charge.

  • The constitutional rights under Section 12, Article III of the Constitution can only be invoked during custodial investigation.