Before the Court are two consolidated administrative matters which originated from an audit and physical inventory of the pending cases in the Municipal Trial Court of Peñaranda, Nueva Ecija conducted by a team from the Office of the Court Administrator composed of Valeriano P. Pobre, Digna C. Palafox, and Samuel R. Ruñez, Jr.

On May 10, 1995, the said audit team submitted its report with the following findings:

The docket of the said Court disclosed the following number of cases:

Civil Cases          --------------------16

Election Cases    -------------------   1

Criminal Cases ------------------- 71

Of the 16 Civil Cases, Civil Cases Nos. 08-94, 09-94, 10-94, 11-94, 12-94 and of the 71 Criminal Cases, Criminal Cases Nos. 46-94, 47-94, 48-94, 49-94, 51-94, 59-94, 60-94, 61-94, 62-94 and 63-94 will be remanded to the Regional Trial Court for they were inadvertently transferred to the Municipal Trial Court before the effectivity of the expanded jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court.

No initial action was taken on the following criminal cases

No.	Nature	Date Filed
05-95	Viol. of P.D. 1602	1-17-95
07-95	Mal. Mischief	1-30-95
66-94	Viol. of BP 22	8-10-94
95-94	Viol. of PD 1602	12-27-94
90-94	Viol. of PD 1602	11-22-94
59-94	Assault upon an agent of a person in authority	7-19-94
01-95	Oral Defamation	1-16-95

No further action was taken on the following criminal cases after the issuance of Warrant of Arrest:

No.	Nature	Date Filed	Date of W/A
51-93	Grave Threats	12-14-94	6-28-94
44-93	Estafa	10-21-93	6- 7-94
31-92	Grave Threats	7-23-93	6-28-94
05-93	Estafa	3- 2-93	6-28-94
18-93	Acts of Lasciviousness	5-18-93	6-28-94
32-93	Grave Threats	7- 8-93	9- 8-94
68-94	Tax Evasion	8-24-94	8-25-94
44-94	Estafa	7-12-94	8- 4-94
79-94	Frust. Homicide	10-11-94	10-13-94
30-94	Q.  Trespass to Dwel.	10-13-94	10-13-94
76-94	Assault Upon an Agent of a Person in Authority	9-28-94	10-11-94
14-94	Estafa	3-17-94	3-22-94
37-94	Q. Theft	6- 7-94	3-14-94
40-94	Estafa	6- 9-94	7- 9-94
81-94	Acts of Lasc.	10-13-94	11- 8-94
92-94	Mal. Mischief	12-15-94	1-17-95

Criminal Case No. 23-94 filed on April 4, 1994 is deemed submitted for decision upon the filing of the last position paper of the litigants on July 27, 1994 and up to now no decision was ever made.

All the other criminal and civil cases are still pending either in the Preliminary Investigation stage or under trial.

It was also discovered during the audit that in Criminal Case No. 78-94 for Homicide under Preliminary Investigation was Provisionally Dismissed per Order dated January 2, 1995 based on an Affidavit of Desistance executed by the complaining witness after being partially paid the amount of P35,000.00 receipt of which is reflected at the back of the minute of the Order of dismissal. The team came into possession of official receipt with No. 6625649 M dated November 11, 1994 issued by the Clerk of Court. Showing the amount of P30,000.00 purporting to be a cash deposit which was a part of the consideration to be paid to complainant for the Provisional Dismissal of the case. Said deposit was never reported to our Revenue Collection Section of the Accounting Division, this Office nor the local Office of the Treasurer. When confronted with this problem, the Clerk of Court of the court under audit, admitted that the said amount is in his possession and promised to return the same to the depositor.

Verification made with the Statistics Division of this Office shows that the Quarterly Report ending March 31, 1994 was certified correct by an illegible signature above the printed Presiding Judge. A comparison of the signature of Judge Rodolfo de Guzman from previous reports with that of the illegible signature shows that these signatures are totally different and made by different persons.

Considering that Judge Rodolfo De Guzman has resigned upon filing his certificate of candidacy for Mayor in the town of Jaen, Nueva Ecija on March 21, 1995 it is impossible that he could have certified to the correctness of the Quarterly Report of the Court under audit which report was received by the Statistics Division of this Office on May 4, 1995.

(pp. 1-2, Rollo.)

Based on said findings, the Office of the Court Administrator, in its Memorandum dated May 10, 1995, made the following recommendations:

Judge Rodolfo R. de Guzman has been in the government service, exclusively as Judge since June 1, 1971 more than 23 years and being more than 60 years of age, born on November 25, 1934, is qualified to the benefits of RA 910, as amended, should he apply for retirement under said law. To date no such application was ever received by this office.

It was also worth mentioning that Judge Rodolfo R. de Guzman has five (5) pending administrative cases against him, viz:

1.       R-73 MTJ Falsification of Records;

2.       R-91 MTJ Ignorance of the Law;

3.       R-328 MTJ Ignorance of the Law;

4.       MTJ-89-288 Corrupt Practices;

5.       MTJ-93-850 Gross Ignorance of the Law.

Recommendation:

In view of the above findings, it is respectfully recommended that:

1)              Whatever retirement benefits due Judge Rodolfo De Guzman be withheld to answer for any penalty that may be imposed by the Court for:

a) Not deciding Criminal Case No. 23-94 which has been deemed submitted beyond the 90 day period;

b) No initial action was ever taken on Criminal Cases Nos.05-95, 07-95, 66-94, 95-94, 90-94 and 59-94; and

c) No further action was taken on the Criminal Cases after Warrants of Arrest were issued against the accused, and after service of which returned unserved.

2)              The Clerk of Court, Rolando R. Jamlid be made to explain his undue interference in the Provisional Dismissal of Criminal Case No. 78-94 for promised monetary consideration to the complainant and the latter's failure to report on our Revenue Collection Section of the Accounting Division of the cash deposit in the amount of P 30,000.00 covered by official receipt No.6625649 M dated November 11, 1994 purporting to be a part of the monetary consideration to be paid to the complainant for the dismissal of the above case;

3)              Judge GEMINIANO A. ECUARDO, Presiding Judge of Municipal Trial Court, of General Tinio, Nueva Ecija having the least number of cases in its docket and the nearest Municipal Trial Court, be designated to act as a Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Peñaranda, Nueva Ecija in addition to his present duties. These Courts are under the same territorial administrative jurisdiction of RTC, Gapan, Nueva Ecija.

4) The Clerk of Court, Rolando R. Jamlid be made to explain the forged signature of the Presiding Judge who certified to the correctness of the Quarterly Report of the Court under audit for the period ending March 31, 1995.

(pp. III-IV, Rollo.)

In resolution dated June 27, 1995, the Court resolved to: 1) DIRECT the Fiscal Management and Budget Officer to WITHHOLD retirement benefits of respondent Judge de Guzman to answer for any penalty that may be imposed for: (a) not deciding Criminal Case No. 23-94 which was deemed submitted beyond the 90 day period; (b) not taking any initial action on Criminal Cases No. 05-95, 07-95, 66-94, 95-94, 90-94, and 59-94; and (c) not taking further action on the criminal cases after warrants of arrest were issued against the accused, after service of which were returned unserved; 2) DIRECT respondent Jamlid to EXPLAIN his undue interference in the provisional dismissal of Criminal Case No. 78-94 for promised monetary consideration to the complainant and his failure to report the Revenue Collection of the Accounting Division of the cash deposit in the amount of P 30,000.00 covered by Official Receipt No. 6625649M, dated November 11, 1994, purporting to be a part of the monetary consideration to be paid to the complainant for the dismissal of the aforesaid criminal case; 3) DESIGNATE Presiding Judge Geminiano A. Eduardo, Municipal Trial Court, General Tinio, Nueva Ecija, having the least number of cases in its docket and the nearest Municipal Trial Court, to act as Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court, Peñaranda, Nueva Ecija, in addition to his present duties; and 4) DIRECT respondent Jamlid to EXPLAIN. Within ten days from notice, the forged signature of the Presiding Judge who certified to the correctness of the Quarterly Report of the court for the period ending March 31, 1994 (p. 4, Rollo).

The Office of the Court Administrator was then furnished a copy of an undated letter of Ms. Teresita Astillazo, demanding from respondent Jamlid the release of the cash deposit made in Criminal Case No. 78-94 in the sum of P30,000.00 covered by OR No. 6625649M issued on November 11, 1994. The demand was made in view of the dismissal of the case and the cancellation of bailbond in an order dated January 2, 1995.

Acting thereon, on the Office of the Court Administrator referred the matter to respondent Jamlid for comment. However, despite due notice, respondent Jamlid failed to file his comment which prompted this Court's Third Division to issue a Resolution dated August 28, 1995 suspending him from the office for a period of one month and ordering him to file his comment within ten days from notice, with warning that failure to do so will be dealt with more severely.

In the meantime, by way of compliance with Resolution of June 27, 1995, respondent Jamlid filed a reply-letter dated July 31, 1995 stating that:

1.       Criminal Case No. 23-94, this case was not decided by then former Presiding Judge Rodolfo R. De Guzman within the prescribed 90 day period due to the fact that it was forgotten despite our reminder to him.

2.       Criminal Cases Nos. 05-95, 95-94, 90-94, these cases were not acted upon by Judge Rodolfo de Guzman despite subpoena was issued against the accused and per return of service of the Process Server, all the accused were not contacted.

3.       Criminal Case No. 7-95, this case was being settled by Judge Eduardo and the parties have agreed for an amicable settlement when this case was set for hearing last June 13, 1995.

4.       Criminal Case No. 66-94, this case was dismissed last April 20, 1995.

5.       Criminal Case No. 59-94, the records of this case was already forwarded to the RTC, Gapan, Nueva Ecija last March 14, 1995.

6.       With regards to the cash deposits of P30,000.00 intended to be given to the complainant in Crim. Case No. 78-94 which was deposited by one Teresita Astillazo, I have already talked to her that I be given up to August 30, 1995 to settle the said obligation.

7.       With regards to the alleged forged signature of Judge Geminiano A. Eduardo in our quarterly report of cases ending March 31, 1995, the said signature was not forged but it was the true signature of Judge Geminiano Eduardo as attested by our Court Interpreter, a copy of her certification is hereto attached.

(p. 6, Rollo.)

On the other hand, respondent Judge de Guzman, in his letter dated August 9, 1995, sought reconsideration of the June 27, 1995 Resolution insofar as it withheld his retirement benefits, citing the following grounds:

1.       Criminal Case No. 23-94 was never deemed submitted for decision on the merits: (a) because the defense has not presented any evidence yet; (b) the court cannot decide the case on mere position paper; (c) while admittedly the court a quo did not resolve the move, no formal or unwritten motion to resolve was ever filed; (d) it is clear under the law that the procedure in the MTC should be the same as with the RTC;

2.       Criminal Cases Nos. 05-95, 90-94, and 95-94, subpoenas were issued but they were not served as it is likely that the accused gave fictitious names. Under the premises, the cases should be archived;

3.       Criminal Case No. 66-94 is related to Criminal Cases Nos. 41-94, 42-94 and 43-94 which he disposed by amicable settlement. The dismissal of the said cases were realized only on April 20, 1990, for which account, the parties did not appear anymore when the case was set for hearing;

4.       Criminal Case No. 07-95 was likewise amicably settled. The settlement was, however, not realized because of his separation from the service on March 21, 1995;

5.       Criminal Case No. 59-94 was elevated to the RTC as it falls under the latter's jurisdiction; and

6.       On the cases where no further action were taken after the service of notice were returned unserved, the Court should await the "number of months need (sic) to order the cases archived;

(p. 60, Rollo.)

Memorandum dated December 26, 1995, recommended that the Informal Preliminary Inquiry (OCA I.P.I 95-28-P) be converted into an administrative matter and that it be consolidated with A.M. No. 95-6-55 MTC and that respondent Jamlid be directed to explain and show cause within ten days why he should not be held liable for gross insubordination and gross dishonesty and be meted the penalty of dismissal from the service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, if any, with prejudice to re-employment in any government and/or government owned or controlled corporation. Said recommendations were adopted by the Third Division in a Resolution dated August 12, 1996.

The Court in a Resolution dated September 24, 1996, resolved to consolidate A.M. No. P-96-1173 (formerly OCA I.P.I. 95-28-P) with A.M. No. 95-6-55 MTC.

In compliance with the Resolution of September 12, 1995, The Office of the Court Administrator submitted a Memorandum dated February 9, 1996 with the following recommendations:

ACCORDINGLY, in view of all the foregoing, we respectfully recommend to this Honorable Court that: a) Item Nos. 1(b) and 1(c) of the Resolution of the Court En Banc, dated June 27, 1995 in the instant matter, be referred to Honorable Executive Judge Arturo Bernardo of the Regional Trial Court, Gapan, Nueva Ecija, for investigation, report and recommendation to be submitted within sixty (60) days from receipt of the records; b) another judicial audit team be sent to the Municipal Trial Court, Peñaranda, Nueva Ecija for the purpose of examining the nature of disposal of cases thereat for years 1993 to 1995, both in the exercise of its regular and preliminary investigation of criminal cases; c) Judge De Guzman should be FINED in the sum of Ten thousand (P10,000.00) Pesos to be remitted to this Court within 30 days from notice, for irregular termination of criminal cases through amicable settlement and for his failure to decide Criminal Case No. 23-94, a case under summary procedure, within the thirty (30) day reglementary period; d) the charge of forgery against Clerk of Court II Jamlid should be dismissed for lack of merit; e) Clerk of Court Jamlid be DIRECTED to remit the sum of thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00) to the Revenue Collection Section of the Accounting Division of the Court within thirty (30) days from notice; f) he should further be DISMISSED from the service with all its ancillary consequences for violation of Administrative Circular No. 32-93 (Re: Collection of Legal Fees and Submission of Monthly Report of Collections, gross dishonesty and malversation and/or illegal exactions and transactions (Articles 217; 213, paragraph 2 (a); 215, Revised Penal Code); and g) the instant case should be referred to the Office of the Ombudsman for the filing of appropriate criminal complaint.

(pp. 63-64, Rollo.)

The Court has said time and time again that the conduct and behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with the administration and disposition of justice -- from the presiding judge to the lowest clerk -- should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility as to let them free from any suspicion that may taint the well-guarded image of the judiciary (Gano vs. Leonen, 232 SCRA 98 [1994]). It has always been emphasized that the conduct of judges and court personnel must not only be characterized by propriety and decorum at all times, but also be above suspicion. Verily, the image of a court of justice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of the men and women, from the judge to the least and lowest of its personnel, hence, it becomes the imperative sacred duty of each and everyone in the court to maintain its good name and standing as a true temple of justice (Miro vs. Tan, 235 SCRA 400 [1994], citing Recto vs. Raulis 70 SCRA 438 [1976]). Thus every employee of the court should be an exemplar of integrity, uprightness, and honesty.

Upon careful scrutiny of the records, the Court finds respondent Judge de Guzman administratively liable for failing to decide Criminal Case No. 23-94 within the 30-day reglementary period for irregular termination of criminal cases through amicable settlements.

The Court has consistently impressed upon members of the judiciary the need to decide cases promptly and expeditiously under the time-honored precept that justice delayed is justice denied (Re: Judge Luis B. Bello, Jr., 247 SCRA 519 [1995]). Every judge should decide cases with dispatch (Castro vs. Malazo, 99 SCRA 164 [1980]) and should be careful, punctual and observant in the performance of his functions (Secretary of Justice vs. Bidin, 41, SCRA 742 [1971]; Escabillas vs. Martinez, 78 SCRA 367 [1977]). Failure to decide a case within the reglementary period is not excusable and constitutes gross inefficiency warranting the imposition of administrative sanction on the defaulting judge (Celino vs. Abrogar, 245 SCRA 304 [1995]; Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the Regional Trial Court Branches 61, 134 and 147, Makati Metro Manila, 248 SCRA [1995]).

Respondent Judge de Guzman claims that Criminal Case No. 23-94 was not submitted for decision as he can not decide the case on mere position papers, and the accused has not presented any evidence yet. The reasons given are not compelling. As correctly observed by the Office the Court Administrator, it is quite logical to presume that the parties filed their position papers upon respondent Judge de Guzman's direction for his own consideration and the subsequent lack of setting of the case for hearing for a considerable length of time after the submission of the position papers clearly and strongly indicates that there was nothing more to be done in the case except to resolve the same. In fact, respondent Judge de Guzman's contention is belied by respondent Jamlid's admission in his reply-letter dated July 31, 1995 that the reason why the case was not decided by respondent Judge de Guzman within the prescribed period was that it was forgotten by respondent Judge de Guzman despite the necessary reminders. The accused's non-presentation of evidence does not exculpate respondent Judge de Guzman for his inaction. On the contrary, it even shows and bolsters respondent Judge de Guzman's ineffieciency and negligence in managing the cases assigned to his sala. Based on the records, a trial was conducted on September 20, 1994 where the prosecution presented its evidence and rested its case. Thereafter, no more trial was scheduled and held. What respondent Judge de Guzman should have done was to immediately set the case for the reception of the evidence of the accused. But for unknown reasons, respondent Judge de Guzman did not. Further, what makes respondent Judge de Guzman's inaction more censurable is that the Criminal Case No. 23-94 is a malicious mischief case, subject to the Rule on Summary Procedure.

Anent the charge of irregular termination of criminal cases through amicable settlements, such charge has not been rebutted by respondent Judge de Guzman. On the contrary, the charge was admitted by him in his letter dated August 9, 1995.

Every judge is mandated to be prompt in disposing all cases pending in his sala, but he must do so in accordance with the prescribed laws and rules. Here, respondent Judge de Guzman was on the right path in trying to resolve or to terminate promptly the criminal cases assigned to him. But the manner he chose and pursued in furtherance thereof -- amicable settlement -- is not generally acceptable in criminal cases. Under Articles 89 and 94 of the Revised Penal Code, amicable settlement is not one of those modes of extinguishing criminal liability, for crimes are transgressions against the State and are not subject to determination of the parties, save in cases of private crimes. Going over the criminal cases resolved by respondent Judge de Guzman through amicable settlement, they did not involve private crimes.

Since respondent Judge de Guzman has already resigned from the office, the Court finds the imposition of fine in the amount of Ten Thousand (P 10,000.00) Pesos to be deducted from his retirement benefits proper.

The Court now shifts its attention to the charges against respondent Jamlid.

During its examination, the audit team called the attention of respondent Jamlid concerning the unremitted cash amount of P30,000.00 covered by OR No. 6625649M dated November 11, 1994 which he admitted to be in his possession. In his letter-reply dated July 31, 1995, respondent Jamlid merely stated that he had talked to Teresita Astillazo and requested that he be given up to August 30, 1995 to settle said obligation. The reason advanced by respondent Jamlid is likewise not compelling. On the contrary, it even reveals his liability. As the cash amount was covered by O.R. No. 6625649M dated November 11, 1994 issued by respondent Jamlid himself, it became part of public funds which have to be immediately and necessarily remitted to the Court. Thus, said cash, being part of public funds, is not a personal obligation of respondent Jamlid to Teresita Astillazo, and will only be returned to latter upon proper court order. In fact, when made to explain regarding the undated letter of Teresita Astillazo demanding the release of the said cash amount, respondent Jamlid failed to file any answer or comment, despite the necessary caveat that failure to do so will be dealt with more severely. Such failure strengthens, and worse, aggravates his liability. If only respondent Jamlid properly remitted the said cash amount, there would have been no obstacle in its immediate release to Teresita Astillazo. But, for unknown reasons, respondent Jamlid has not remitted to the Court said cash amount up to the present.

Due to such failure, respondent Jamlid transgressed the trust reposed in him as cashier and disbursement officer of the Court (See Chapter VII, Sec, B, Manual for Clerks of Court, July 1991, p. 123). It likewise amounts to violation of the standing circulars of the Supreme Court.

Administrative Circular No. 13-92, in this regard, pertinently provides that all collection for bailbonds, rental deposits, and other fiduciary collections shall be deposited immediately by the Clerk of Court concerned, upon receipt thereof, with the authorized government depository bank (Land Bank of the Philippines). Should there be no Land Bank of the Philippines branch in the locality, the Clerk of Court shall deposit all collections with any rural bank in the area, furnishing the Accounting Division of the Supreme Court such information.

On the other hand, Administrative Circular No. 32-93 provides that all Clerks of Court and Accountable Officers are enjoined to follow strictly the following prescribed guidelines:

1)       Submission of monthly report of collections for all funds should be sent to this Court not later than the 10^th day of each succeeding month and should include the following:

a) Original copy of the Report of the Clerk of Court's Account indicating the current debit and credit (Judicial Form No. 20); duplicate official receipts issued; and the corresponding remittance advice slips duly validated by the Bank where collection was deposited (amount of collections per report should equal amount per remittance).

b) Duplicate copy of Sheriff's report of Collections and Account (Judicial Form No. 38-A); validated duplicate copy of official receipts and the corresponding remittance advice slips (amount of collections per report should equal amount per remittance).

(For General Fund for Ex-Officio Sheriff of RTC and SDC)

c) Original copy of report of deposits and withdrawals and validated duplicate copy of official receipts and deposit slips; and in cases of withdrawals, a copy of the order of the Court duly authenticated with the Court's seal and copy of acknowledgement receipt. (For Fiduciary Fund of RTC and SDC).

d) Original copy of report for deposits and withdrawals; duplicates official receipts issued and in case of withdrawals, copy of Sheriff cash payment receipts.

(For Sheriff Trust Fund of RTC and SDC)

e) Original copy of Report of Collections and Deposits; duplicate official receipts issued and a copy of the validated deposit slip or the postal money order stub if remittance is by PMO.

(For Judiciary Development Fund of RTC, SDC, Metro TC, MTCC, MTC, MCTC and SCC

Moreover, respondent Jamlid's failure to turn over the cash not only constitutes gross negligence in the performance of his duty, but likewise gross dishonesty and even malvaresation of funds which cannot be countenanced by the Court for they diminish the faith of the people in the judiciary (see Lirios vs. Oliveros, 253 SCRA 258 [1996]).

In JDF Anomaly in the RTC of Ligao, Albay (255 SCRA 221 [1996]), the Court re-echoed its pronouncement in Gano vs. Leonen (supra) that "public service require the utmost integrity and strictest discipline. Thus, a public servant must exhibit at all times the highest sense of honesty and integrity. No less than the Constitution sanctifies the principle that public office is a public trust, and enjoins all public officers and employees to serve with the highest degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency. The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees additionally provides that every public servant shall at all times uphold public interest over his or her personal interest."

Pursuant to Section 23, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules implementing Book V of Executive Order 292, gross negligence in the performance of duty, dishonesty and grave misconduct are classified as grave offenses for which the penalty of dismissal is imposed. Section 9 of the said Rule likewise provides that "the penalty of dismissal shall carry with it cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of leave credits and retirement benefits and the disqualification for re-employment in the government service. Further, it may be imposed without prejudiced to criminal liability."

ACCORDINGLY, for gross inefficiency and for irregular termination of cases through amicable settlements, respondent Judge Rodolfo de Guzman is hereby FINED in the sum of TEN THOUSAND (P10,000.00) PESOS to be deducted from whatever retirement benefits he may be entitled to receive.

Respondent Rolando Jamlid is hereby DISMISSED from the service, with forfeiture of all leave credits and retirement benefits and with prejudice to re-employment in any government agency including government-owned or controlled corporations. He is further DIRECTED to remit the sum of Thirty Thousand (P30,000.00) Pesos to the Revenue Collection Section of the Accounting Division of the Court within thirty (30) days from notice.

Judge Geminiano A. Eduardo, Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Gen Tinio, Nueva Ecija, who has been designated to act as Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Peñaranda, Nueva Ecija is hereby DIRECTED to take the necessary and appropriate action concerning those criminal cases where no initial action has been taken and those where no further action was taken after the issuance of the warrants of arrest.

SO ORDERED

Padilla, (Acting C.J.), Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Francisco, and Panganiban, JJ., concur.
Narvasa, C.J., Hermosisima, Jr.and Torres, Jr., JJ., on leave.