FIRST DIVISION
[ A.M. No. MTJ-07-1670 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 06-1822-MTJ), July 23, 2008 ]ATTY. RODERICK M. SANTOS v. JUDGE LAURO BERNARDO +
ATTY. RODERICK M. SANTOS AND ALEXANDER ANDRES COMPLAINANTS, VS. JUDGE LAURO BERNARDO, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, BOCAUE, BULACAN, RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
ATTY. RODERICK M. SANTOS v. JUDGE LAURO BERNARDO +
ATTY. RODERICK M. SANTOS AND ALEXANDER ANDRES COMPLAINANTS, VS. JUDGE LAURO BERNARDO, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, BOCAUE, BULACAN, RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
AZCUNA, J.:
This is an administrative case against respondent MTC Judge Lauro Bernardo for his alleged impropriety, manifest bias and partiality, grave abuse of discretion, and gross ignorance of the law/procedure relative to Criminal Case No. 06-004 entitled "People
of the Philippines v. Atty. Roderick M. Santos and Boyet Andres."
On February 9, 2006, Atty. Roderick M. Santos and Alexander Andres filed a verified Affidavit-Complaint charging respondent of:
Impropriety -
Respondent is using government resources in the discharge of his functions for his personal pleasure and convenience. Specifically, he allows his girlfriend, a certain "Boots," to stay and use as her lounge the judge's chamber in violation of his duty under Rule 2.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct to maintain proper decorum. On many occasions, even when there is a hearing, his girlfriend stays in the chamber, hindering the full performance of respondent's duties as he has to attend to her whims and caprices, plus the fact that his girlfriend is just cooling herself in the air-conditioned room while litigants have to bear the cramped hot space of the courtroom. This act also invites suspicion since her mere presence therein is an indication of who to talk to regarding a case. Following the case of Presado v. Genova, [1] the act of respondent constitutes serious misconduct.
Manifest Bias and Partiality -
Respondent committed manifest bias and partiality when he allowed the filing of Criminal Case No. 06-004 for Grave Coercion against the complainants because it was his chance to get back at Atty. Santos against whom he is harboring a grudge after the latter moved for his inhibition in Criminal Case Nos. 04-430 and 04-572.
Instead of conducting a preliminary investigation after the filing of the complaint to find probable cause to hold complainants herein for trial, respondent immediately signed the criminal complaint upon its filing and ordered that the case be set for "preliminary hearing" on January 12, 2006. His own branch clerk certified that the "complainant and her witnesses only subscribed their statement before the presiding judge." Worse, respondent allowed the criminal case to be filed even if it is based on hearsay evidence, as the complainant therein, one Dr. Elida D. Yanga, was not in the place at the time the alleged offense happened. From the documents gathered, the undue haste by which respondent acted is very evident because the complaint- affidavit, the criminal complaint, and the subpoena have the common date of January 4, 2006. More so, the subpoena was immediately served on complainants on January 5, 2006.
Grave Abuse of Discretion and Unfaithfulness to the Law -
Respondent committed grave abuse of discretion when he did not conduct a preliminary investigation in Crim. Case No. 06-004. Under paragraph 2, Section 1, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure (Rules), [2] preliminary investigation is required to be conducted before the filing of a complaint or information for offenses where the penalty prescribed by law is at least four years, two months and one day. The maximum imposable penalty for Grave Coercion is six years imprisonment; hence, complainants should have been accorded the right to preliminary investigation whereby they could have demonstrated that the complaint is worthless. Respondent, however, chose to be ignorant of the basic provisions of the Rules in order to exact revenge and cause them to unduly stand trial. Despite the Motion to Quash Complaint with Prayer for Voluntary Inhibition filed by complainants to give him a chance to correct his error by at least referring the case to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Bulacan for the conduct of the requisite preliminary investigation, he remained adamant by issuing an order referring the case instead to the Executive Judge of Bulacan for its raffle to another MTC judge. This act showed respondent's deliberate intent to make the complainants accused persons in a criminal case.
By allowing the immediate filing of a patently unmeritorious case, respondent tainted Atty. Santos' good reputation: he is a law practitioner with companies in Makati, Pasig and Manila as clients; he is a businessman and was also a former chairman of the board and current board director of St. Martin of Tours Credit and Development Cooperative, the largest credit cooperative in Region III; and he is a frequent traveler, going abroad at least once a year. With the worthless criminal case filed against him, respondent puts a sore obstacle to Atty. Santos' way of life that is truly an undeserved inconvenience.
On April 11, 2006, respondent filed his Comment arguing in the main that the charges against him are hearsay, without factual and legal basis, and are a malicious imputation upon his person; and that the acts stated in the complaint were based solely on the bare allegations of the complainants as no corroborative statements of witnesses were presented to prove the same. In contradicting complainants' representation, he stated thus:
As to the charge of Impropriety:
"Boots" (whose maiden name was Ma. Rosario M. Layuga) is now respondent's lawful wife, as proven by a marriage certificate showing their civil union before a Caloocan City Regional Trial Court (RTC) judge on March 14, 2006. There was no occasion or intention on his part to make the judge's chamber a residential or dwelling place. Instead, his wife's presence is "actually dictated by a moral duty in the exercise of marital responsibility" since he has been allergic to some foods, particularly fish and some beans. In fact, last October 2005, after eating fish, respondent nearly lost his life due to a severe allergy had it not been for the timely medical intervention administered at a nearby hospital. Aside from this, he is suffering from irregular heartbeat which causes constant rise of his blood pressure and uric acid. Also, his wife is not merely present in the chamber since, while in there, she is also attending to some activities. Being self-employed and with extensive exposure to trading, she administers the family property consisting of leased premises and landholdings in Pandi, Bulacan.
Respondent's relation to his wife is "serious, open and known to the public" and that the atmosphere prevailing in the court's chamber even in the alleged presence of his wife is "an atmosphere of friendship, respect and decency." He related that he and his wife are regular participants of Marriage Encounter prayer meetings as well as in the prayer assemblies conducted by the Couples for Christ. Respondent is an active member of the Rotary Club of Sta. Maria and Knights of Columbus, Marian Council of Sta. Maria, Bulacan while his wife is a member of the Inner Wheel Club of the Philippines. As members, they are active participants in the clubs' community projects and other civic activities. On top of these, respondent judge presented Resolution No. 06-03-025, dated 20 March 2006, of the Sangguniang Bayan of Bocaue, Bulacan signifying its "unilateral decree of support and commendation to [respondent] in recognition of his long years of commendable and meritorious service in the dispensation of justice" and the Certificate of Commendation, dated 30 March 2006, issued by the Mayor of the Municipality of Bocaue.
As to the charge of Manifest Bias and Partiality:
Complainants interpreted that when respondent signed the criminal complaint as well as subscribed the affidavits of the witnesses under oath he already made a finding of probable cause. This is not correct because his signature was only for the purpose of administering an oath, as evidenced by the certification issued by the clerk of court. The fact is that the criminal case did not reach the stage of preliminary investigation since complainants filed a Motion for Inhibition which was readily granted. Respondent conducted the court proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Rules, particularly Sections 3 (a) and 8 (b) of Rule 112.[3]
As to the charge of Grave Abuse of Discretion and Unfaithfulness to the Law:
Admittedly, preliminary investigation must be conducted before the filing of a complaint or information for an offense where the penalty prescribed by law is at least four years, two months and one day without regard to fine. In the case of Grave Coercion, however, there is no need for a preliminary investigation since prision correccional (six months and one day to six years), which is the imposable penalty for said crime, does not fall within the required penalty of prision correccional maximum (four years, two months and one day). The criminal case against complainants should proceed in accordance with Section 8 (b) of Rule 112.
When respondent issued a subpoena setting the case for preliminary hearing it was taken as a measure of "damage control." Knowing that a member of the Bar is being charged before the court, it might have afforded the parties the chance to thresh out their differences and possibly settle amicably. Likewise, his order to forward the case to the Office of the Executive Judge was but a result of his voluntary inhibition from the case, which he had chosen to definitely rule upon instead of further quashing the criminal complaint since the Motion filed by complainants prayed respondent to resolve two "judiciously irreconcilable" issues.
As a background, the enmity between respondent and Atty. Santos started in Criminal Case Nos. 04-430 and 04-572 wherein the latter appeared as private prosecutor in Criminal Case No. 04-430 for Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Damage to Property. The accused in said case later on filed a similar case (docketed as Criminal Case No. 04-572) against Atty. Santos' client. Respondent found probable cause in both cases. Atty. Santos questioned this ruling but, on appeal, the RTC sustained the findings. Atty. Santos did not elevate the matter to the appellate court until the decision became final.
In order for liability to attach for ignorance of the law, the assailed order, decision or actuation of the judge in the performance of official duties must not only be found erroneous but most importantly it must be established that he was moved by bad faith, dishonesty or some other like motive. In this case, respondent has nothing to gain, material or otherwise, from the outcome of the criminal action; he met the parties only during the proceedings in court, not before its filing, and he inhibited himself promptly from the case. Atty. Santos instead is the one who has animosity to respondent; he must realize and understand that what he (respondent) had done is just all in a day's work and nothing personal about it.
In their Reply, the complainants argued that aside from converting the judge's chamber into a "nursing home" or "convalescent center" what is more troubling is respondent's own admission that his wife's activities therein are not limited to the "[care] for the sick" but also to her involvement in trading, which is highly irregular and improper since they are being conducted within the court's premises. As regards the commendations received by respondent, the complainants stated that it is most likely that everybody working in the Municipal Government of Bocaue got an award because it was given during its 400th foundation day; that the "pro-forma" certificates do not show whether he deserves it or not; and in any event, these awards are totally irrelevant to the case. Incidentally, complainants also mentioned that court sessions in Bocaue usually start late almost at 2:00 p.m. or later, instead of 1:30 p.m.
Likewise, complainants commented on the "disturbing procedure" followed by respondent, which is, allowing the criminal complaint to be immediately entered in the criminal docket (thus, converting it to a criminal case by a mere stroke of the clerk of court's pen) and signing the criminal complaint aside from the affidavit-complaint without first finding probable case. This, according to them, is contrary to the provision of Sec. 3 (a), Rule 112 of the Rules which states that only the affidavits must be subscribed and sworn to, a rule that respondent must follow when he is to conduct his investigatory functions under Sec. 3 or Sec. 9 (b), Rule 112.[4] Complainants also dismissed respondent's reasoning that his actuation was based on Sec. 3 (a) and Sec. 9 (b), Rule 112 because, as proven by the absence of any transcript of stenographic notes (TSN), the latter did not conduct searching questions and answers to Dr. Yanga and her witnesses. He has to explain, therefore, why he admitted a complaint based on hearsay evidence since the person who was not the object of the alleged coercive acts is the one who is the offended party in the criminal case.
Complainants insisted that since the maximum penalty imposable for the offense of Grave Coercion is six years, a preliminary investigation should have been held. Moreover, they maintained that Rule 112 is a complete procedure in itself; hence, as stated in Sec. 9 (b), it is the duty of respondent to dismiss the complaint or find probable cause within ten (10) days from its filing and not to call for a "preliminary hearing," which is a non-existent procedure in the Rules.
Lastly, Atty. Santos denied that he was the one who has hard feelings against respondent. Instead, he claimed that it is a matter of record, in the Order resolving the Motion for Voluntary Inhibition in Crim. Case Nos. 04-430 and 04-572, that the latter branded him as somebody he could not "co-exist with ... in the quest for a just and equitable administration of justice." Atty. Santos alleged that respondent even furnished the Executive Judge of Bulacan with a copy of the Order to broadcast that he is a difficult lawyer to deal with. He emphasized that this administrative complaint is not about his client in Crim. Case No. 04-572 but is concerned with the injustice committed by respondent when he willingly and deliberately violated established rules and legal doctrines just so complainants would suffer undue injury by being tried for a fabricated case of Grave Coercion.
Parrying the supplementary allegations, on the other hand, respondent countered in his Rejoinder that it is unfair for complainants to conclude, much more insinuate, that his wife has something to do with any impropriety by her mere presence in the chamber. He reiterated that her company is necessitated by his health condition and that, anyway, she also has her own business to attend to - that of managing the family inheritance of leased premises in the nearby town of Pandi, Bulacan, and actively engaging herself in an independent business concern, held not in MTC-Bocaue, which is the large-scale trading of electric transformers, metal scraps and heavy equipment entrusted to her by her uncles and close relatives.
As to the charge of frequent delay of court sessions, respondent stated that he has been always present and ready to begin the proceedings but it is the desire of most lawyers to start at 2:00 p.m., more or less, because most of them, including the public prosecutor and the PAO lawyer, come from RTC hearings and even all the way from Malolos City. To compensate for the lost time, however, he averred that court sessions adjourn even up to 6:30 p.m. so that all cases may be accommodated.
Respondent clarified that when he signed the affidavits of Dr. Yanga and her witnesses it was only for the purpose of administering the oath of the person filing the criminal complaint. He posited that the proper rule that must be applied is not Sec. 3 (a), Rule 112, which refers to the procedure in preliminary investigation, but Sec. 3, Rule 110[5] on the institution of criminal actions providing that the complaint must be subscribed by the offended party, any peace officer, or other public officer charged with the enforcement of the law violated. Further, while respondent conceded that there was really no TSN available because no hearing was held he asserted that under Sec. 9 (b) of Rule 112 a judge is authorized to just personally evaluate the evidence before him to find probable cause instead of personally examining in writing and under oath the complainant and his witnesses in the form of searching questions and answers. Finally, respondent firmly held on to his position that Grave Coercion is not one of the crimes requiring preliminary investigation since the minimum penalty imposable for said offense is six months and one day.
On February 20, 2007, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found respondent administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law, and recommended the imposition of a fine in the amount of P20,000 considering this is his first time to be sanctioned for a serious charge. In its Report, the OCA stated:
The Report and Recommendation of the OCA are sustained.
There is no merit in respondent's supposition that Grave Coercion is an offense not subject to preliminary investigation because the minimum penalty imposable for the said offense, which is six months and one day, falls short of the minimum penalty of four years, two months and one day required by the Rules. The OCA correctly applied San Agustin v. People. [6] Certainly, the need for a preliminary investigation under Sec. 1 in relation to Sec. 8 of Rule 112 of the Rules depends upon the imposable penalty for the crime charged in the complaint or information filed and not upon the imposable penalty for the offense which may be found to have been committed by the accused after a preliminary investigation. In the case of Grave Coercion, the Revised Penal Code provides a penalty of prision correccional or anywhere between six months and one day to six years; thus, a preliminary investigation must still be held since there is a possibility that the complainants would stand to suffer the maximum penalty imposable for the offense. The purpose of a preliminary investigation is to protect the innocent from hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecutions, from an unnecessary open and public accusation of a crime, and from the trouble, expense and anxiety of a trial. It also protects the State from a useless and expensive litigation. Above all, it is a part of the guarantees of freedom and fair play.[7]
Notably, however, by the time the criminal complaint of Dr. Yanga against herein complainants was filed on January 3, 2006, respondent was already without authority to conduct preliminary investigation since effective October 3, 2005, judges of Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts are no longer authorized to conduct the same, pursuant to A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC (Re: Amendment of Rules 112 and 114 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure by Removing the Conduct of Preliminary Investigation from Judges of the First Level Courts).[8] The appropriate action of respondent, therefore, should have been to immediately refer the complaint to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Bulacan so that a preliminary investigation could proceed with reasonable dispatch. His issuance of a subpoena directing complainants to appear before the court on January 12, 2006 for a "preliminary hearing," although the hearing did not materialize after his voluntary inhibition from the case on January 10, 2006, was definitely out of order. At this point, it is clear that respondent committed gross ignorance of an existing procedure which is basic and elementary.
Meanwhile, as to the impropriety purportedly committed by respondent in his own chamber, the OCA rightly found that complainants failed to provide specific details that would validate any misuse or abuse of government funds and/or facilities. Nonetheless, it is opportune to remind respondent as well as other trial court judges, who are the "front-liners" in the promotion of the people's faith in the judiciary, of the directives embodied in the following administrative circulars:
WHEREFORE, respondent Judge LAURO BERNARDO, MTC, Bocaue, Bulacan, is found GUILTY of gross ignorance of the law and basic rules of procedure and is hereby FINED in the amount of P20,000, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
Let a copy of this Decision be attached to the personnel record of respondent in the Office of the Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, C. J. (Chairperson), Carpio, Corona, and Leonardo-De castro, JJ., concur.
[1] A.M. No. RTJ 91-657, June 21, 1993, 223 SCRA 489.
[2] Paragraph 2 of Section 1, Rule 112 provides:
SECTION 1. Preliminary investigation defined; when required. - x x x x.
Except as provided in Section 6 of this Rule, a preliminary investigation is required to be conducted before the filing of a compliant or information for an offense where the penalty prescribed by law is at least four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day without regard to the fine.
[3] Sec. 3 (a) of Rule 112 states:
[5] Sec. 3 Rule 110 states:
Sec. 3. Complaint defined. - A complaint is a sworn written statement charging a person with an offense, subscribed by the offended party, any peace officer, or other public officer charged with the enforcement of the law violated.
[6] G.R. No. 158211, August 31, 2004, 437 SCRA 392, 401.
[7] R.R. Paredes v. Calilung, G.R. No. 156055, March 5, 2007, 517 SCRA 369, 395.
[8] See Martinez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 168827, April 13, 2007, 521 SCRA 176, 191; Verzosa v. Contreras, A.M. No. MTJ-06-1636, March 12, 2007, 518 SCRA 94, 106; Lumbos v. Baliguat, A.M. No. MTJ-06-1641, July 27, 2006, 496 SCRA 556, 571-572; Landayan v. Quilantang, A.M. No. MTJ-06-1632, May 4, 2006, 489 SCRA 360, 366; Bitoon v. Toledo-Mupas, A.M. No. MTJ-05-1598, January 23, 2006, 479 SCRA 351, 354; Ora v. Almajar, A.M. No. MTJ-05-1599, October 14, 2005, 473 SCRA 17, 21; and Gozun v. Gozum, A.M. No. MTJ-00-1324, October 5, 2005, 472 SCRA 49, 62-63.
[9] Issued on August 31, 1992.
[10] Effective on February 1, 1999.
[11] Effective on July 27, 1999.
[12] A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC, effective June 1, 2004.
[13] Canon 4, Sections 1 and 8.
On February 9, 2006, Atty. Roderick M. Santos and Alexander Andres filed a verified Affidavit-Complaint charging respondent of:
Impropriety -
Respondent is using government resources in the discharge of his functions for his personal pleasure and convenience. Specifically, he allows his girlfriend, a certain "Boots," to stay and use as her lounge the judge's chamber in violation of his duty under Rule 2.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct to maintain proper decorum. On many occasions, even when there is a hearing, his girlfriend stays in the chamber, hindering the full performance of respondent's duties as he has to attend to her whims and caprices, plus the fact that his girlfriend is just cooling herself in the air-conditioned room while litigants have to bear the cramped hot space of the courtroom. This act also invites suspicion since her mere presence therein is an indication of who to talk to regarding a case. Following the case of Presado v. Genova, [1] the act of respondent constitutes serious misconduct.
Manifest Bias and Partiality -
Respondent committed manifest bias and partiality when he allowed the filing of Criminal Case No. 06-004 for Grave Coercion against the complainants because it was his chance to get back at Atty. Santos against whom he is harboring a grudge after the latter moved for his inhibition in Criminal Case Nos. 04-430 and 04-572.
Instead of conducting a preliminary investigation after the filing of the complaint to find probable cause to hold complainants herein for trial, respondent immediately signed the criminal complaint upon its filing and ordered that the case be set for "preliminary hearing" on January 12, 2006. His own branch clerk certified that the "complainant and her witnesses only subscribed their statement before the presiding judge." Worse, respondent allowed the criminal case to be filed even if it is based on hearsay evidence, as the complainant therein, one Dr. Elida D. Yanga, was not in the place at the time the alleged offense happened. From the documents gathered, the undue haste by which respondent acted is very evident because the complaint- affidavit, the criminal complaint, and the subpoena have the common date of January 4, 2006. More so, the subpoena was immediately served on complainants on January 5, 2006.
Grave Abuse of Discretion and Unfaithfulness to the Law -
Respondent committed grave abuse of discretion when he did not conduct a preliminary investigation in Crim. Case No. 06-004. Under paragraph 2, Section 1, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure (Rules), [2] preliminary investigation is required to be conducted before the filing of a complaint or information for offenses where the penalty prescribed by law is at least four years, two months and one day. The maximum imposable penalty for Grave Coercion is six years imprisonment; hence, complainants should have been accorded the right to preliminary investigation whereby they could have demonstrated that the complaint is worthless. Respondent, however, chose to be ignorant of the basic provisions of the Rules in order to exact revenge and cause them to unduly stand trial. Despite the Motion to Quash Complaint with Prayer for Voluntary Inhibition filed by complainants to give him a chance to correct his error by at least referring the case to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Bulacan for the conduct of the requisite preliminary investigation, he remained adamant by issuing an order referring the case instead to the Executive Judge of Bulacan for its raffle to another MTC judge. This act showed respondent's deliberate intent to make the complainants accused persons in a criminal case.
By allowing the immediate filing of a patently unmeritorious case, respondent tainted Atty. Santos' good reputation: he is a law practitioner with companies in Makati, Pasig and Manila as clients; he is a businessman and was also a former chairman of the board and current board director of St. Martin of Tours Credit and Development Cooperative, the largest credit cooperative in Region III; and he is a frequent traveler, going abroad at least once a year. With the worthless criminal case filed against him, respondent puts a sore obstacle to Atty. Santos' way of life that is truly an undeserved inconvenience.
On April 11, 2006, respondent filed his Comment arguing in the main that the charges against him are hearsay, without factual and legal basis, and are a malicious imputation upon his person; and that the acts stated in the complaint were based solely on the bare allegations of the complainants as no corroborative statements of witnesses were presented to prove the same. In contradicting complainants' representation, he stated thus:
As to the charge of Impropriety:
"Boots" (whose maiden name was Ma. Rosario M. Layuga) is now respondent's lawful wife, as proven by a marriage certificate showing their civil union before a Caloocan City Regional Trial Court (RTC) judge on March 14, 2006. There was no occasion or intention on his part to make the judge's chamber a residential or dwelling place. Instead, his wife's presence is "actually dictated by a moral duty in the exercise of marital responsibility" since he has been allergic to some foods, particularly fish and some beans. In fact, last October 2005, after eating fish, respondent nearly lost his life due to a severe allergy had it not been for the timely medical intervention administered at a nearby hospital. Aside from this, he is suffering from irregular heartbeat which causes constant rise of his blood pressure and uric acid. Also, his wife is not merely present in the chamber since, while in there, she is also attending to some activities. Being self-employed and with extensive exposure to trading, she administers the family property consisting of leased premises and landholdings in Pandi, Bulacan.
Respondent's relation to his wife is "serious, open and known to the public" and that the atmosphere prevailing in the court's chamber even in the alleged presence of his wife is "an atmosphere of friendship, respect and decency." He related that he and his wife are regular participants of Marriage Encounter prayer meetings as well as in the prayer assemblies conducted by the Couples for Christ. Respondent is an active member of the Rotary Club of Sta. Maria and Knights of Columbus, Marian Council of Sta. Maria, Bulacan while his wife is a member of the Inner Wheel Club of the Philippines. As members, they are active participants in the clubs' community projects and other civic activities. On top of these, respondent judge presented Resolution No. 06-03-025, dated 20 March 2006, of the Sangguniang Bayan of Bocaue, Bulacan signifying its "unilateral decree of support and commendation to [respondent] in recognition of his long years of commendable and meritorious service in the dispensation of justice" and the Certificate of Commendation, dated 30 March 2006, issued by the Mayor of the Municipality of Bocaue.
As to the charge of Manifest Bias and Partiality:
Complainants interpreted that when respondent signed the criminal complaint as well as subscribed the affidavits of the witnesses under oath he already made a finding of probable cause. This is not correct because his signature was only for the purpose of administering an oath, as evidenced by the certification issued by the clerk of court. The fact is that the criminal case did not reach the stage of preliminary investigation since complainants filed a Motion for Inhibition which was readily granted. Respondent conducted the court proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Rules, particularly Sections 3 (a) and 8 (b) of Rule 112.[3]
As to the charge of Grave Abuse of Discretion and Unfaithfulness to the Law:
Admittedly, preliminary investigation must be conducted before the filing of a complaint or information for an offense where the penalty prescribed by law is at least four years, two months and one day without regard to fine. In the case of Grave Coercion, however, there is no need for a preliminary investigation since prision correccional (six months and one day to six years), which is the imposable penalty for said crime, does not fall within the required penalty of prision correccional maximum (four years, two months and one day). The criminal case against complainants should proceed in accordance with Section 8 (b) of Rule 112.
When respondent issued a subpoena setting the case for preliminary hearing it was taken as a measure of "damage control." Knowing that a member of the Bar is being charged before the court, it might have afforded the parties the chance to thresh out their differences and possibly settle amicably. Likewise, his order to forward the case to the Office of the Executive Judge was but a result of his voluntary inhibition from the case, which he had chosen to definitely rule upon instead of further quashing the criminal complaint since the Motion filed by complainants prayed respondent to resolve two "judiciously irreconcilable" issues.
As a background, the enmity between respondent and Atty. Santos started in Criminal Case Nos. 04-430 and 04-572 wherein the latter appeared as private prosecutor in Criminal Case No. 04-430 for Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Damage to Property. The accused in said case later on filed a similar case (docketed as Criminal Case No. 04-572) against Atty. Santos' client. Respondent found probable cause in both cases. Atty. Santos questioned this ruling but, on appeal, the RTC sustained the findings. Atty. Santos did not elevate the matter to the appellate court until the decision became final.
In order for liability to attach for ignorance of the law, the assailed order, decision or actuation of the judge in the performance of official duties must not only be found erroneous but most importantly it must be established that he was moved by bad faith, dishonesty or some other like motive. In this case, respondent has nothing to gain, material or otherwise, from the outcome of the criminal action; he met the parties only during the proceedings in court, not before its filing, and he inhibited himself promptly from the case. Atty. Santos instead is the one who has animosity to respondent; he must realize and understand that what he (respondent) had done is just all in a day's work and nothing personal about it.
In their Reply, the complainants argued that aside from converting the judge's chamber into a "nursing home" or "convalescent center" what is more troubling is respondent's own admission that his wife's activities therein are not limited to the "[care] for the sick" but also to her involvement in trading, which is highly irregular and improper since they are being conducted within the court's premises. As regards the commendations received by respondent, the complainants stated that it is most likely that everybody working in the Municipal Government of Bocaue got an award because it was given during its 400th foundation day; that the "pro-forma" certificates do not show whether he deserves it or not; and in any event, these awards are totally irrelevant to the case. Incidentally, complainants also mentioned that court sessions in Bocaue usually start late almost at 2:00 p.m. or later, instead of 1:30 p.m.
Likewise, complainants commented on the "disturbing procedure" followed by respondent, which is, allowing the criminal complaint to be immediately entered in the criminal docket (thus, converting it to a criminal case by a mere stroke of the clerk of court's pen) and signing the criminal complaint aside from the affidavit-complaint without first finding probable case. This, according to them, is contrary to the provision of Sec. 3 (a), Rule 112 of the Rules which states that only the affidavits must be subscribed and sworn to, a rule that respondent must follow when he is to conduct his investigatory functions under Sec. 3 or Sec. 9 (b), Rule 112.[4] Complainants also dismissed respondent's reasoning that his actuation was based on Sec. 3 (a) and Sec. 9 (b), Rule 112 because, as proven by the absence of any transcript of stenographic notes (TSN), the latter did not conduct searching questions and answers to Dr. Yanga and her witnesses. He has to explain, therefore, why he admitted a complaint based on hearsay evidence since the person who was not the object of the alleged coercive acts is the one who is the offended party in the criminal case.
Complainants insisted that since the maximum penalty imposable for the offense of Grave Coercion is six years, a preliminary investigation should have been held. Moreover, they maintained that Rule 112 is a complete procedure in itself; hence, as stated in Sec. 9 (b), it is the duty of respondent to dismiss the complaint or find probable cause within ten (10) days from its filing and not to call for a "preliminary hearing," which is a non-existent procedure in the Rules.
Lastly, Atty. Santos denied that he was the one who has hard feelings against respondent. Instead, he claimed that it is a matter of record, in the Order resolving the Motion for Voluntary Inhibition in Crim. Case Nos. 04-430 and 04-572, that the latter branded him as somebody he could not "co-exist with ... in the quest for a just and equitable administration of justice." Atty. Santos alleged that respondent even furnished the Executive Judge of Bulacan with a copy of the Order to broadcast that he is a difficult lawyer to deal with. He emphasized that this administrative complaint is not about his client in Crim. Case No. 04-572 but is concerned with the injustice committed by respondent when he willingly and deliberately violated established rules and legal doctrines just so complainants would suffer undue injury by being tried for a fabricated case of Grave Coercion.
Parrying the supplementary allegations, on the other hand, respondent countered in his Rejoinder that it is unfair for complainants to conclude, much more insinuate, that his wife has something to do with any impropriety by her mere presence in the chamber. He reiterated that her company is necessitated by his health condition and that, anyway, she also has her own business to attend to - that of managing the family inheritance of leased premises in the nearby town of Pandi, Bulacan, and actively engaging herself in an independent business concern, held not in MTC-Bocaue, which is the large-scale trading of electric transformers, metal scraps and heavy equipment entrusted to her by her uncles and close relatives.
As to the charge of frequent delay of court sessions, respondent stated that he has been always present and ready to begin the proceedings but it is the desire of most lawyers to start at 2:00 p.m., more or less, because most of them, including the public prosecutor and the PAO lawyer, come from RTC hearings and even all the way from Malolos City. To compensate for the lost time, however, he averred that court sessions adjourn even up to 6:30 p.m. so that all cases may be accommodated.
Respondent clarified that when he signed the affidavits of Dr. Yanga and her witnesses it was only for the purpose of administering the oath of the person filing the criminal complaint. He posited that the proper rule that must be applied is not Sec. 3 (a), Rule 112, which refers to the procedure in preliminary investigation, but Sec. 3, Rule 110[5] on the institution of criminal actions providing that the complaint must be subscribed by the offended party, any peace officer, or other public officer charged with the enforcement of the law violated. Further, while respondent conceded that there was really no TSN available because no hearing was held he asserted that under Sec. 9 (b) of Rule 112 a judge is authorized to just personally evaluate the evidence before him to find probable cause instead of personally examining in writing and under oath the complainant and his witnesses in the form of searching questions and answers. Finally, respondent firmly held on to his position that Grave Coercion is not one of the crimes requiring preliminary investigation since the minimum penalty imposable for said offense is six months and one day.
On February 20, 2007, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found respondent administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law, and recommended the imposition of a fine in the amount of P20,000 considering this is his first time to be sanctioned for a serious charge. In its Report, the OCA stated:
Whether of not there is a need for preliminary investigation under Section 1 in relation to Section 9 of Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure depends upon the maximum imposable penalty for the crime charged in the complaint filed with the City Prosecutor's Office and not upon the imposable penalty for the crime found to have been committed by respondent.As regards the other charges, the OCA dismissed them for complainants' failure to adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate the allegations.
In San Agustin v. People, the Court held:
"However, we do not agree with the ruling of the Court of Appeals that there was no need for the City Prosecutor to conduct a preliminary investigation since the crime charged under the Information filed with the MeTC was arbitrary detention under Article 124, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code punishable by arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period, which has a range of four months and one day to two years and four months. Whether or not there is a need for a preliminary investigation under Section 1 in relation to Section 9 [now Section 8] of Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure depends upon the imposable penalty for the crime charged in the complaint filed with the City or Provincial Prosecutor's Office and not upon the imposable penalty for the crime found to have been committed by the respondent after a preliminary investigation. In this case, the crime charged in the complaint of the NBI filed in the Department of Justice was kidnapping/serious illegal detention, the imposable penalty for which is reclusion perpetua to death."The maximum imposable penalty for grave coercion is six years imprisonment and such entitled the accused to their right to a preliminary investigation to save them from the rigors of trials in case no probable cause exists to warrant the filing of the criminal complaint or information against them.
Respondent Judge should have remanded the case to the public prosecutor for the purposes of preliminary investigation. [The Supreme] Court in a catena of cases held:
"The absence of preliminary investigation does not affect the court's jurisdiction over the case. Nor do they impair the validity of the information or otherwise render it defective, but if there were no preliminary investigation and the defendants, before entering their plea, invite the attention of the court to their absence, the court instead of dismissing the information, should conduct such investigation, order the fiscal to conduct it or remand the case to the inferior court so that preliminary investigation may be conducted."[The Supreme] Court has consistently held that lack of conversance with legal principles sufficiently basic and elementary constitutes gross ignorance of the law. As an advocate of justice and a visible representation of the law, a judge is expected to be proficient in the interpretation of our laws.
The issue raised by complainant does not pertain to an error of judgment or to one pertaining to the exercise of sound discretion by respondent. Rather, the issue is whether respondent complied with the procedural rules so elementary that to digress from them amounts to ignorance of the law. Since the rules on preliminary investigation are basic and clearly expressed in the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, respondent's actuation in denying the same is deemed to have been attended by gross ignorance of the law and procedure.
Respondent clearly strayed from the well-trodden path when he grossly misapplied the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. (Citations omitted)
The Report and Recommendation of the OCA are sustained.
There is no merit in respondent's supposition that Grave Coercion is an offense not subject to preliminary investigation because the minimum penalty imposable for the said offense, which is six months and one day, falls short of the minimum penalty of four years, two months and one day required by the Rules. The OCA correctly applied San Agustin v. People. [6] Certainly, the need for a preliminary investigation under Sec. 1 in relation to Sec. 8 of Rule 112 of the Rules depends upon the imposable penalty for the crime charged in the complaint or information filed and not upon the imposable penalty for the offense which may be found to have been committed by the accused after a preliminary investigation. In the case of Grave Coercion, the Revised Penal Code provides a penalty of prision correccional or anywhere between six months and one day to six years; thus, a preliminary investigation must still be held since there is a possibility that the complainants would stand to suffer the maximum penalty imposable for the offense. The purpose of a preliminary investigation is to protect the innocent from hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecutions, from an unnecessary open and public accusation of a crime, and from the trouble, expense and anxiety of a trial. It also protects the State from a useless and expensive litigation. Above all, it is a part of the guarantees of freedom and fair play.[7]
Notably, however, by the time the criminal complaint of Dr. Yanga against herein complainants was filed on January 3, 2006, respondent was already without authority to conduct preliminary investigation since effective October 3, 2005, judges of Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts are no longer authorized to conduct the same, pursuant to A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC (Re: Amendment of Rules 112 and 114 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure by Removing the Conduct of Preliminary Investigation from Judges of the First Level Courts).[8] The appropriate action of respondent, therefore, should have been to immediately refer the complaint to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Bulacan so that a preliminary investigation could proceed with reasonable dispatch. His issuance of a subpoena directing complainants to appear before the court on January 12, 2006 for a "preliminary hearing," although the hearing did not materialize after his voluntary inhibition from the case on January 10, 2006, was definitely out of order. At this point, it is clear that respondent committed gross ignorance of an existing procedure which is basic and elementary.
Meanwhile, as to the impropriety purportedly committed by respondent in his own chamber, the OCA rightly found that complainants failed to provide specific details that would validate any misuse or abuse of government funds and/or facilities. Nonetheless, it is opportune to remind respondent as well as other trial court judges, who are the "front-liners" in the promotion of the people's faith in the judiciary, of the directives embodied in the following administrative circulars:
- Administrative Circular (A.C.) No. 3-92 (Prohibition against Use of Halls of Justice for Residential or Commercial Purposes) [9] - All judges and court personnel are reminded that the Halls of Justice may be used only for purposes directly
related to the functioning and operation of the courts of justice, and may not be devoted to any other use, least of all as residential quarters of the judges or court personnel, or for carrying on therein any trade or profession. Attention is drawn to this Court's ruling in
A.M. No. RTJ-89-327 (Nellie Kelly Austria v. Judge Singuat Guerra) whereby we declared that the use of the court's premises inevitably degrades the honor and dignity of the court in addition to exposing judicial records to danger of loss or damage.
- A.C. No. 01-99 (Enhancing the Dignity of Courts as Temples of Justice and Promoting Respect for their Official and Employees) [10] - Considering the courts as temples of justice, their dignity and sanctity must, at all times, be preserved
and enhanced. In inspiring public respect for the justice system, court officials and employees are directed, among others, never to use their offices as a residence or for any other purpose than for court or judicial functions.
- A.C. No. 09-99 (Banning Smoking and Selling of Goods within Court Houses and Offices)[11] - Conformably with A.C. No. 01-99, this circular disallowed, among others, within court houses and, more specifically, session halls and offices of
court officials and personnel, the selling of goods of any kind, especially by persons who are not court employees.
WHEREFORE, respondent Judge LAURO BERNARDO, MTC, Bocaue, Bulacan, is found GUILTY of gross ignorance of the law and basic rules of procedure and is hereby FINED in the amount of P20,000, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
Let a copy of this Decision be attached to the personnel record of respondent in the Office of the Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, C. J. (Chairperson), Carpio, Corona, and Leonardo-De castro, JJ., concur.
[1] A.M. No. RTJ 91-657, June 21, 1993, 223 SCRA 489.
[2] Paragraph 2 of Section 1, Rule 112 provides:
SECTION 1. Preliminary investigation defined; when required. - x x x x.
Except as provided in Section 6 of this Rule, a preliminary investigation is required to be conducted before the filing of a compliant or information for an offense where the penalty prescribed by law is at least four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day without regard to the fine.
[3] Sec. 3 (a) of Rule 112 states:
SEC. 3. Procedure.- The preliminary investigation shall be conducted in the following manner:[4] Now Sec. 8 (b) of the Rules, as amended by A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC (Supra).
(a) The complaint shall state the address of the respondent and shall be accompanied by the affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses, as well as other supporting documents to establish probable cause. They shall be in such number of copies as there are respondents, plus two (2) copies for the official file. The affidavits shall be subscribed and sworn to before any prosecutor or government official authorized to administer oath, or, in their absence or unavailability, before a notary public, each of whom must certify that he personally examined the affiants and that he is satisfied that they voluntarily executed and understood their affidavits.
while Sec. 8 (b) of Rule 112 provides:
Sec. 8. Cases not requiring a preliminary investigation nor covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure. -
x x x x x x x x x
(b) If filed with the Municipal Trial Court. - If the complaint or information is filed with the Municipal Trial Court or Municipal Circuit Trial Court for an offense covered by this section, the procedure in section 3 (a) of this Rule shall be observed. If within ten (10) days after the filing of the complaint or information, the judge finds no probable cause after personally evaluating the evidence, or after personally examining in writing and under oath the complainant and his witnesses in the form of searching questions and answers, he shall dismiss the same. He may, however, require the submission of additional evidence, within ten (10) days from notice, to determine further the existence of probable cause. If the judge still finds no probable cause despite the additional evidence, he shall, within ten (10) days from its submission or expiration of said period, dismiss the case. When he finds probable cause, he shall issue a warrant of arrest, or a commitment order if the accused had already been arrested, and hold him for trial. However, if the judge is satisfied that there is no necessity for placing the accused under custody, he may issue summons instead of a warrant of arrest.
[5] Sec. 3 Rule 110 states:
Sec. 3. Complaint defined. - A complaint is a sworn written statement charging a person with an offense, subscribed by the offended party, any peace officer, or other public officer charged with the enforcement of the law violated.
[6] G.R. No. 158211, August 31, 2004, 437 SCRA 392, 401.
[7] R.R. Paredes v. Calilung, G.R. No. 156055, March 5, 2007, 517 SCRA 369, 395.
[8] See Martinez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 168827, April 13, 2007, 521 SCRA 176, 191; Verzosa v. Contreras, A.M. No. MTJ-06-1636, March 12, 2007, 518 SCRA 94, 106; Lumbos v. Baliguat, A.M. No. MTJ-06-1641, July 27, 2006, 496 SCRA 556, 571-572; Landayan v. Quilantang, A.M. No. MTJ-06-1632, May 4, 2006, 489 SCRA 360, 366; Bitoon v. Toledo-Mupas, A.M. No. MTJ-05-1598, January 23, 2006, 479 SCRA 351, 354; Ora v. Almajar, A.M. No. MTJ-05-1599, October 14, 2005, 473 SCRA 17, 21; and Gozun v. Gozum, A.M. No. MTJ-00-1324, October 5, 2005, 472 SCRA 49, 62-63.
[9] Issued on August 31, 1992.
[10] Effective on February 1, 1999.
[11] Effective on July 27, 1999.
[12] A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC, effective June 1, 2004.
[13] Canon 4, Sections 1 and 8.