J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

CASE 2011-0030: IN RE:  REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 45, URDANETA CITY, PANGASINAN, AND REPORT ON THE INCIDENT AT BRANCH 49, SAME COURT. (A.M. No.  08-4-253-RTC, 12 JANUARY 2011, BERSAMIN, J.) SUBJECTS: ADMINISTRATIVE DUTIES OF A JUDGE AND CLERK OF COURT; OMISSIONS; PENALTIES.

 x—————————————————————-x

D E C I S I O N

BERSAMIN, J.:

          The Court, through the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), routinely conducts an audit of the caseload and performance of a retiring trial judge. The Court will unhesitatingly impose appropriate sanctions despite the intervening retirement of the judge or member of the staff should the audit establish any inefficiency on the part of the retiring trial judge or of any member of the staff.

          Here, we sanction a judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and his Branch Clerk of Court, despite the former’s intervening retirement, for the inefficient management of their court records and caseload. The sanction should serve as a timely reminder yet again to all incumbent trial judges and court personnel to handle court records and to manage caseloads efficiently and systematically, or else they suffer the appropriate sanctions.

ANTECEDENTS

A.

Findings on Caseload and Docket Inventory of Branch 45

          On September 18-19, 2007, the OCA conducted a judicial audit of the caseload of Branch 45 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC Branch 45) in Urdaneta City in view of the compulsory retirement of Presiding Judge Joven F. Costales (Judge Costales) by November 21, 2007.

          As its preliminary findings,^[1][1] the judicial audit team reported that RTC Branch 45’s caseload totaled 465 cases (i.e., 197 civil cases and 268 criminal cases), of which:

(a) 16 were submitted for decision or resolution but still unresolved;

(b)  14 included unresolved incidents;

(c)  11 had no action taken since their filing;

(d) Three were criminal cases awaiting compliance relative to the last incidents;

(e)  39 underwent no further hearings or actions;

(f)    Seven were civil cases awaiting ex parte reception of evidence; and

(g) 14 were criminal cases with unserved warrants or alias warrants of arrest.

Further, the judicial audit team concluded that the docket inventory of RTC Branch 45 was inaccurate, because:

(a) The docket inventory contained numerous typographical errors that led to the confusion about whether some cases were reported or not;

(b) The form prescribed in Administrative Circular No. 10-94 dated June 29, 1994 was not adopted;

(c)  Some case records had no dates of receipt; and

(d) In Criminal Case No. U-13095, Branch 45 issued an order dated July 27, 2007 resetting the trial notwithstanding that one of the accused had not been arraigned.^[2][2]

On November 19, 2007, the OCA, through then Deputy Court Administrator (DCA) Jose P. Perez,^[3][3] issued a memorandum to Atty. Max Pascua (Atty. Pascua), the Branch Clerk of Court of RTC Branch 45,^[4][4] directing him thuswise:

In view of the compulsory retirement of Judge Joven F. Costales on November 21, 2007, you are DIRECTED to (a) bring these cases to the attention of your pairing/acting judge for his/her guidance and appropriate action; and (b) inform this Office, within ten (10) days from notice, if there were any changes in the status of the listed cases in Annex “A” attaching thereto certified true copies of the orders/decisions.

Further, you are DIRECTED to (a) COMMENT, within ten (10) days from notice, on the following findings:  civil cases for reception of evidence ex-parte listed under Table 10; inaccurate Docket Inventory Report described in letter H.2; and case records with no date of receipt; and (b) henceforth ADOPT THE PRESCRIBED FORM under Administrative Circular No. 10-94 dated June 29, 1994 re: Submission of Semestral Docket Inventory Report.

In partial compliance with the memorandum, Atty. Pascua replied by letter dated January 4, 2008 (accompanied by a report on the status of criminal and civil cases and on other matters),^[5][5] explaining:

         Regarding the inaccurate Docket Inventory and the typographical errors in criminal cases records as observed by the audit team (letter H-2 of the memorandum), rest assured Your Honor that undersigned is arranging things in its (sic) proper order and have instructed the civil and criminal records clerk-in-charge regarding the matter, including the adoption of the prescribed form under Adm. Circular No. 10-94 in submission of Semestral Docket Inventory Report.

It appears that on January 8, 2008,^[6][6] the OCA informed Judge Costales that (a) the clearance necessary for the approval of his claim for compulsory retirement benefits could not issue pending his compliance with the memorandum dated November 19, 2007; and (b) his request for the release of his retirement benefits, less the amount that might answer for any liability, was still under evaluation by the Court.

In his letter dated January 8, 2008,^[7][7] Judge Costales wrote to the OCA, viz:

         This is in connection with your letter dated November 19, 2007 which the undersigned received on November 20, 2007, directing him to conduct an investigation regarding the irregularity in the punching of Bundy clock of the employees of RTC, Branch 49, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan and to submit his report within ten (10) days thereof.

         I am awfully sorry for failing to comply the same (sic) on the following grounds:

1.   I received said memorandum only on November 20, 2007, the date of my compulsory retirement.

2.   That a week before my retirement on November 21, 2007, I was too busy reading and signing decisions and resolutions of motions in order that at the time of my retirement all cases submitted for decision are decided and all motions for resolutions are resolved, which I was able to do so.

3.   That during my last day of the service, November 20, 2007, I instructed my Branch Clerk of Court, Atty. Max Pascua to write your Honor to inform you that as much as I am already retired after November 21, 2007, the Executive Judge should be the one to conduct such investigation.  However, I only learned yesterday that the Branch Clerk of Court was unable to do what I directed him to do by writing you on the matter.

4.   Anent my comments on the findings of the Audit Team regarding the cases pending before Branch 45, I have also ordered Atty. Pascua to make the necessary reply, comment and/or explanations on the matter, as I am no longer in the Judiciary after November 21, 2007.  Nonetheless, I was told by Atty. Pascua that he would submit said comments, reply and/or explanations by next week.

5.   That I have not gone to Branch 45 Office since I retired last November 21, 2007, and I was of the notion and belief that Atty. Pascua had written you on the matter.

         On the above reasons, as I am no longer connected with the Judiciary, my failure to comply with the said memorandum dated November 10, 2007 earlier is reasonable and well-founded.

         Again, I would like to reiterate my apology for what happened.

         Thank you, Sir!

Judge Costales sent to the OCA another letter dated January 26, 2008,^[8][8] as follows:

         The undersigned received last January 23, 2008 the following:

1.   Memorandum dated November 19, 2007 directing me to submit my report and recommendation relative to the irregularity in the punching of Bundy clock at RTC, Branch 49 when I was the Acting Executive Judge of the RTC, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan.

2.   A letter dated November 19, 2007 directing me to give my comment on the findings of the Judicial Audit Team conducted in my sala, RTC, Branch 45.

3.   Annex “A”, re findings of the Audit Team.

4.   Memorandum dated November 19, 2007, addressed to Atty. Max Pascua, Branch Clerk of Court of RTC, Branch 45, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan.

         Anent No. 1, Please be informed that I sent to Your Honor a letter last January 8, 2008, explaining my failure to submit my comments on the matter, a copy of which is hereto attached and marked as Annex “A”.

         With regards (sic) to No. 2, my explanation is also contained in my letter dated January 8, 2008.  Nonetheless, if I am directed to personally submit my comment, I would like then to state that on Tables 1 and 2: A. CASES SUBMITTED FOR DECISION on Civil and Criminal Cases, I have already decided all said cases, a Certification issued by the Branch Clerk of Court Atty. Max Pascua, marked as Annex “B” is hereto attached.  Likewise, a copy of the letter-comment of Atty. Pascua marked as Annex “C” is hereto attached.  In said comments, Annex “C”, of Atty. Pascua, all the comments and/or explanations on the findings of the Audit Team from Table 1 to Table 11 are sufficiently indicated therein.  I am adopting thereof, the comments and/or explanations of Atty. Pascua as my comments and/or explanation on the matter.

         I hope Your Honor, that the above comments and/or explanations on my part would suffice on the matter/s I am directed to do.

         Your Honor, it is indeed regrettable, that up to this time or more two months since I retired after rendering continuous or almost 40 years of Government service, I have not yet received a single centavo of the Retirement Benefits I am supposed to receive.  It is true that an Administrative Case was filed against me, however, a Letter of Retention in order that I can also receive the benefits accorded to me was also submitted by me.  I hope that the resolution/decision of my administrative case be resolved/decided by the Honorable Supreme Court at the soonest.

         In the interest of justice, I should be given my Retirement Benefits as soon as possible.  I am earnestly requesting Your Honor, to please help me on the matter for the early release of my Retirement Benefits.

         Thank you very much, Your Honor! 

B.

Failure of Judge Costales to investigate

and to report on bundy clock incident

In addition to being the Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 45, Judge Costales served as the acting Executive Judge in the absence of the Executive Judge. In that capacity, he discharged duties, among them the investigation of administrative complaints brought against court personnel within his administrative area; and the submission of his findings and recommendations to the Court.^[9][9]

          On September 19, 2007, in the course of the judicial audit of Branch 45, Fernando S. Agbulos, Jr. (Agbulos, Jr.), team leader of the judicial audit, visited RTC Branch 49 to remind the Branch Clerk of Court on the monthly report of cases to be submitted to the OCA. After finding only two employees actually present in Branch 49, he inspected the bundy cards and discovered that all of the court personnel of Branch 49 except two – Helen Lim and Rowena Espinosa – had punched in on that day.  He immediately referred his discovery (bundy-cards incident) to the attention of Judge Costales as acting Executive Judge.

          When nothing was heard from Judge Costales about his action on the bundy-cards incident, the OCA issued to him a memorandum on November 19, 2007 to remind him that his report on the incident was already overdue, and to direct him to submit his report within ten days from notice. However, Judge Costales still did not comply with the directive of the OCA. 

Later on, Judge Costales explained through his aforecited letter dated January 8, 2008 that he had instructed Atty. Pascua upon his receipt of the memorandum on November 20, 2007 to advise the OCA of his forthcoming retirement, but that Atty. Pascua had failed to so inform the OCA; that in the week prior to his retirement on November 21, 2007, he had been too busy reading and signing decisions and resolutions to conduct the investigation of the bundy-cards incident; and that his intervening retirement had left to the new Executive Judge the duty to investigate and report on the bundy-cards incident.

C.

OCA’s Final Findings and Recommendations

          In their memorandum dated April 22, 2008 for the Chief Justice,^[10][10] Court Administrator Zenaida N. Elepaño and DCA Perez rendered the following findings, namely:

(a)  Some case records bore no dates of receipt by Branch 45;

(b)  Several case records did not contain the latest court actions/court processes taken;

(c)  No action was taken in some cases since their filing;

(d) The case record of Criminal Case No. U-12848 was not immediately transmitted to the Office of the Prosecutor, although the transmittal had been ordered as early as January 19, 2005;

(e) Some cases were not set for further hearing, or had no further actions taken on them;

(f)   The issuance of summonses and alias summonses by the Branch Clerk of Court was delayed despite the corresponding orders by the judge;

(g)  No actions were taken on cases set for ex parte reception of evidence; and

(h)  Criminal Case No. U-13095 was set for trial with respect to one of the accused who had not been arraigned.

Court Administrator Elepaño and DCA Perez further found that despite his submission of the report on the status of cases on January 4, 2008 and February 18, 2008, Atty. Pascua did not furnish to the OCA copies of the orders and relevant papers showing the status of four criminal cases (i.e., Criminal Case No. U-15010, Criminal Case No. U-15183, Criminal Case No. U-13095, and Criminal Case No. U-14936) and two civil cases (i.e., Civil Case No. U-2377 and Civil Case No. U-8793).

          Anent the bundy-cards incident in RTC Branch 49, Court Administrator. Elepaño and DCA Perez stated as follows:^[11][11]

On September 19, 2007, the second day of this judicial audit, Mr. Fernando S. Agbulos, Jr., team member, went to Branch 49, same court, to remind the Clerk of Court of the Monthly Reports of Cases due for submission to the Office of the Court Administrator.  He was surprised to see only two (2) employees inside the office.  An inspection of the bundy cards would show, however, that only Ms. Helen Q. Lim and Ms. Rowena Espinosa did not punch in their cards on the said day. The team immediately reported the incident and referred the same to Judge Costales, then Acting Executive Judge of RTC, Urdaneta City, for his investigation, report and recommendation.

On November 19, 2007, this Office reminded Judge Costales of his overdue report on the investigation conducted in September 2007.  Thus:

“In the course of the judicial audit conducted in your court on September 19, 2007, the audit team discovered an appearance of irregularity in the punching of bundy cards at Branch 49, same court.  This was immediately referred to you, in your then capacity as Acting Executive Judge, for investigation.

In view thereof, you are hereby DIRECTED, within ten (10) days from notice, to submit your report and recommendation thereon.”

No response was received from his end.  After his retirement on November 21, 2007, he wrote:

“I am awfully sorry for failing to comply xxx on the following grounds:

1.       I received said memorandum only on November 20, 2007, the date of my compulsory retirement;

2.       That a week before my retirement on November 21, 2007, I instructed my Branch Clerk of Court, Atty. Max Pascua to write your Honor to inform you that as much as I am already retired after November 21, 2007, the Executive Judge should be the one to conduct such investigation.  However, I only learned yesterday that the Branch Clerk of Court was unable to do what I directed him to do by writing you on the matter.

3.      xxx

xxx

On the above reasons (sic), as I am no longer connected with the Judiciary, my failure to comply with the said memorandum dated November 10, 2007 earlier is reasonable and well-founded.”

The explanation is unmeritorious.  The assignment was given to him long before his retirement.  The Memorandum dated November 19, 2007, even if received on November 20, 2007, a day before his compulsory retirement (contrary to his statement that his compulsory retirement was on November 20, 2007), is a mere reminder.

In a long line of cases, the Court has consistently ruled that failure to comply with the directives of the Court is tantamount to insubordination.  In the case at bar, Judge Costales failed to comply with the Memorandum dated November 19, 2007 directing him to submit his report and recommendation on the investigation conducted in September 2007.

          Accordingly, Court Administrator Elepaño and DCA Perez recommended that:

         1.  Retired Judge Joven F. Costales, Regional Trial Court, Branch 45, Urdaneta City be HELD ADMINISTRATIVELY LIABLE for the omissions brought about by records and caseflow mismanagement and insubordination in connection with the non-submission of his report and recommendation on the investigation on the irregularities in the punching of bundy cards at Branch 49, same court;

         2.  Atty. Max G. Pascua, Branch Clerk of Court, same court, Judge Costales be likewise HELD ADMINISTRATIVELY LIABLE for the omissions brought about by records and caseflow mismanagement and his failure to submit all the requirements in connection with the evaluation of the findings during the judicial audit;

         3.  Judge Costales and Atty. Pascua be FINED in the amount of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) each;

         4.  Atty. Pascua be DIRECTED to DEVICE (sic) an efficient system of record management to ensure that all pending cases are included in the calendar of hearing and that the actual status of each case is reflected in each case record, with a STERN WARNING that similar infraction in the future shall be dealt with more severely; and

         4.  Atty. Pascua be DIRECTED to APPRISE, within ten (10) days from notice, the Acting Presiding Judge of Branch 45 of the status of the following cases by furnishing the judge copies of the latest Orders or court processes in (a) Criminal Cases Nos. U-15010, U-15183, U-13095 (transmittal letter to the Office of the Prosecutor) and U-14936 and Civil Cases Nos. U-2377 and U-8793; and (b) Criminal Case No. U-13095 insofar as the arraignment of accused J. Suetus is concerned; and

         5. The Executive Judge, Regional Trial Court, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan be DIRECTED to ENSURE that no irregularities in the punching of bundy cards in her station could, henceforth, be contrived.          

RULING

          We adopt the well-substantiated findings of Court Administrator Elepaño and DCA Perez, but we impose higher penalties on Judge Costales and Atty. Pascua.

A.

Efficient Handling and Physical Inventory of Cases,

Important and Necessary in the Administration of Justice

All judges discharge administrative responsibilities in addition to their adjudicative responsibilities. They should do so by maintaining professional competence in court management and by facilitating the performance of the administrative functions of other judges and court personnel.^[12][12]

An orderly and efficient case management system is no doubt essential in the expeditious disposition of judicial caseloads, because only thereby can the judges, branch clerks of courts, and the clerks-in-charge of the civil and criminal dockets ensure that the court records, which will be the bases for rendering the judgments and dispositions, and the review of the judgments and dispositions on appeal, if any, are intact, complete, updated, and current. Such a system necessarily includes the regular and continuing physical inventory of cases to enable the judge to keep abreast of the status of the pending cases and to be informed that everything in the court is in proper order.^[13][13] In contrast, mismanaged or incomplete records, and the lack of periodic inventory definitely cause unwanted delays in litigations and inflict unnecessary expenses on the parties and the State.

Although the presiding judge and his or her staff share the duty of taking a continuing and regular inventory of cases, the responsibility primarily resides in the presiding judge. The continuity and regularity of the inventory are designed to invest the judge and the court staff with the actual knowledge of the movements, number, and ages of the cases in the docket of their court, a knowledge essential to the efficient management of caseload. The judge should not forget that he or she is duty-bound to perform efficiently, fairly, and with reasonable promptness all his or her judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions.^[14][14] Thus, the judge must devise an efficient recording and filing system for his or her court that enables him or her to quickly monitor cases and to manage the speedy and timely disposition of the cases.^[15][15]

B.

Inefficiency and Mismanagement of

Records of Branch 45

          The OCA uncovered the mismanagement of the records of Branch 45 of the RTC in Urdaneta City, while still presided by Judge Costales, with Atty. Pascua as the Branch Clerk of Court. The mismanagement included the following, to wit: (a) some case records bore no dates of receipt by the branch; (b) several case records did not contain the latest court actions and court processes taken; (c) action had not been taken in some cases from the time of their filing; (d) the case record of Criminal Case No. U-12848 had not been immediately transmitted to the Office of the Prosecutor, despite the transmittal having been ordered  as early as January 19, 2005; (e) some cases had  not  been  set for further  hearing, or had had no further actions taken on them; (f) the issuances of summonses and alias summonses by the Branch Clerk of Court had been delayed despite the corresponding orders for that purpose; (g) action had not been taken on cases set for ex parte reception of evidence; and (h) Criminal Case No. U-13095 had been set for trial with respect to one of the accused who had not been arraigned.

          Aside from the foregoing findings being based on the actual records of Branch 45 of the RTC in Urdaneta City, we note that neither Judge Costales nor Atty. Pascua have refuted the findings of the OCA. Hence, we declare both of them to be administratively liable and subject to appropriate sanctions.

1.

Judge Costales

The sins of Judge Costales consisted of omissions. To start with, he failed to act on some cases from the time of their receipt at Branch 45 until the period of the audit. And, secondly, he did not properly supervise the court personnel, as borne by the records of some cases either not containing the latest court actions and court processes taken, or not showing the actions taken from the time of their filing, or not being set for further hearing or action, or revealing the delayed issuances of summonses and alias summonses despite the corresponding orders towards that end, or by inaction on cases set for ex parte reception of evidence.

Judge Costales uncharacteristically ignored that he discharged judicial and administrative duties as the Presiding Judge of Branch 45. He seemingly forgot that his responsibility of efficiently and systematically managing his caseload was the inseparable twin to his responsibility of justly and speedily deciding the cases assigned to his court. He should have remembered all too easily that he had assumed both responsibilities upon entering into office as Presiding Judge, and that he was bound to competently and capably discharge them from then on until his compulsory retirement. His failure to discharge them properly by organizing and supervising his court personnel with the end in view of bringing them to the prompt dispatch of the court’s business in anticipation of his forced retirement reflected his inefficiency and breached his obligation to observe at all times the high standards of public service and fidelity.^[16][16] 

In this regard, Judge Costales could not deflect the blame to Atty. Pascua as his Branch Clerk of Court. The responsibility of organizing and coordinating the court personnel to ensure the prompt and efficient performance of the court’s business was direct and primary for him as the judge. Truly, the duty to devise an efficient recording and filing system that would have enabled himself and his personnel to monitor the flow of cases and to manage their speedy and timely disposition pertained to him first and foremost.^[17][17] Moreover, he should know that his subordinates were not the guardians of his responsibilities as the judge.^[18][18] Being in legal contemplation the head of his branch,^[19][19] he was the master of his own domain who should be ready and willing to take the responsibility for the mistakes of his subjects,^[20][20] as well as to be ultimately responsible for order and efficiency in his court. He could not hide behind the inefficiency or the incompetence of any of his subordinates.

2.

Atty. Pascua

As with Judge Costales, omissions made up Atty. Pascua’s myriad faults.

Atty. Pascua bore the responsibility for the non-issuance of summonses or alias summonses in some cases, for the failure to indicate the dates of receipt of case records by Branch 45, for the failure to receive evidence ex parte despite the orders to that effect, for the failure to prepare and submit (or cause the submission of) the monthly inventories, and for the failure to report and update the records of the cases of the branch. Such omissions involved matters that he should have routinely and regularly performed. His duty as the Branch Clerk of Court of Branch 45 required him to receive and file all pleadings and other papers properly presented to the branch, endorsing on each such paper the time when it was filed.^[21][21]

Atty. Pascua was equally accountable with Judge Costales for the inefficient handling of the court records of Branch 45.  His being the Branch Clerk of Court made him the custodian of such records (i.e., pleadings, papers, files, exhibits, and the public properties pertaining to the branch and committed to his charge) with the sworn obligation of safely keeping all of them. Like his Presiding Judge, he carried on his shoulders the burden to see to the orderly and proper keeping and management of the court records, by which he was required to exercise close supervision of the court personnel directly charged with the handling of court records.^[22][22] His position of Branch Clerk of Court rendered him an essential and ranking officer of the judicial system performing delicate administrative functions vital to the prompt and proper administration of justice.^[23][23] Alas, he failed to so perform.

3.

Both Judge Costales and Atty. Pascua, Liable

Based on the foregoing, the OCA properly found that Judge Costales and Atty. Pascua were individually and collectively guilty of mismanagement of the case records of Branch 45, for their omissions led to their Branch’s inability to dispose of many pending matters, causing the litigants concerned and even the Government to suffer needless delay and incur unnecessary expense.

However, the recommendation of the OCA to impose a fine of P5,000.00 on each of Judge Costales and Atty. Pascua trivializes their omissions as a light charge. We cannot concur with such recommendation, because the character and magnitude of the omissions indicated that Judge Costales and Atty. Pascua had been inefficient over a long period of time and had failed to devise and put in place any proper system of records management in that length of time. They were really guilty of violating Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars, a violation that Section 9, Rule 140, of the Rules of Court treats as a less serious charge, viz:

Section 9. Less Serious Charges. – Less serious charges include:

1. Undue delay in rendering a decision or order, or in transmitting the records of a case;

2. Frequent and unjustified absences without leave or habitual tardiness;

3. Unauthorized practice of law;

4. Violation of Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars;

5. Receiving additional or double compensation unless specifically authorized by law;

6. Untruthful statements in the certificate of service; and

7. Simple Misconduct.

The sanctions on a less serious charge are stated in Section 11, Rule 140, of the Rules of Court, to wit:

Section 11. Sanctions. – xxx

xxx

B. If the respondent is guilty of a less serious charge, any of the following sanctions shall be imposed: 

1. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) nor more than three (3) months; or

2. A fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00.

xxx

Accordingly, the fine to be imposed on Judge Costales is in the maximum of P20,000.00, by reason of his higher and primary responsibility, and that on Atty. Pascua is P8,000.00, in view of his subordinate but non-judicial position.

C.

Insubordination further rendered Judge Costales

Guilty of Simple Misconduct

The records established that Judge Costales did not investigate the bundy-cards incident in RTC Branch 49 from the time the leader of the judicial audit team had reported it to him in his capacity as the Acting Executive Judge. His inaction was even surprising and inexplicable, because the incident concerned the probable falsification of daily time records by subordinate court employees, a very serious matter that when properly established might have merited for those concerned their dismissal from the service.^[24][24] He still needed to be prodded to investigate by the OCA, but all that he could offer thereafter by way of explaining his inaction was that his forthcoming retirement on November 21, 2007 left him no more time and space to look into the incident.

We cannot exculpate Judge Costales from insubordination.

Section 3, Canon 2 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary directs a judge to take or initiate appropriate disciplinary measures against lawyers or court personnel for unprofessional conduct of which the judge may have become aware.  This imperative duty becomes the more urgent when the act or omission the court personnel has supposedly committed is in the nature of a grave offense, like the bundy-cards incident involved herein. It would have been surely demanded in the best interest of the public service, if not of the court itself, that the act or omission reported by the judicial audit team to Judge Costales as the Acting Executive Judge be investigated and properly dealt with promptly.

The explanation of Judge Costales of having no more time and space to look into the bundy-cards incident was implausible. Having been informed of the anomaly on September 19, 2007, he had at least two months prior to November 21, 2007, his retirement date, within which to carry out his investigation, and to render a report thereon. That length of time was ample, if only he had acted promptly to investigate the incident. 

Moreover, Judge Costales could not reasonably claim that he had not been aware of the need for him to investigate. Although it is true that he received the OCA’s memorandum dated November 19, 2007 only on November 20, 2007, it is equally true that the memorandum was only a reminder to him about his investigation report and recommendation being already overdue. His inaction from the time when Agbulos, Jr. brought the incident to his official attention indicated his having ignored the need for him as an Acting Executive Judge to investigate. That he did not even bother to explain his inaction or his non-compliance with the reminder aggravated his insubordination. Indeed, the attitude he thereby displayed smacked of an uncharacteristic indifference towards his judicial office and towards the Court.

For disobeying or ignoring the directive to investigate the bundy-cards incident, Judge Costales was guilty of insubordination, an omission that constituted simple misconduct, classified under Section 9, no. 4, Rule 140, of the Rules of Court, supra, as a less serious charge, and is thus punished with a fine of P12,000.00, conformably with Section 11, Rule 140, Rules of Court, supra.

          WHEREFORE, we find and pronounce:

1.     Retired JUDGE JOVEN F. COSTALES and BRANCH CLERK OF COURT ATTY. MAX G. PASCUA guilty of the less serious charge of violation of Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars, and are respectively ordered to pay fines of P20,000.00 and P8,000.00; and 

2.     Retired JUDGE JOVEN F. COSTALES guilty of the less serious charge of simple misconduct, and is fined in the amount of P12,000.00.

The fines imposed on JUDGE COSTALES shall be deducted from any retirement benefits due to him.

          The Court directs ATTY. MAX G. PASCUA:

1.  To devise an efficient system of record management that ensures that: (a) all pending case are immediately included in the calendar of hearing; and (b) the actual status of every case is reflected in the respective case record;  and

2.  To apprise the Presiding Judge of Branch 45 of the Regional Trial Court in Urdaneta City, Pangasinan within ten (10) days from notice on the status of the following cases and furnishing copies of the latest orders or court processes therein, namely: (a) Criminal Case Nos. U-15010, U-15183, U-13095 (transmittal letter to the Office of the Prosecutor) and Civil Case Nos. U-2377 and U-8793; and (b) Criminal Case No. U-13095 (regarding the arraignment of the accused).

The incumbent Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court in Urdaneta City, Pangasinan is directed: (a) to immediately investigate and determine the court personnel involved in the bundy clock irregularity committed on September 19, 2007; (b) to report in writing on the investigation to the Office of the Court Administrator within ten (10) days from completion; and (c) to ensure that no similar irregularities are committed in the station.

          SO ORDERED.

                                                                    LUCAS P. BERSAMIN

                                                                           Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES

Associate Justice

Chairperson

      ARTURO D. BRION              MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.

           Associate Justice                               Associate Justice

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO 

Associate Justice

CASE 2011-0029: OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR VS. MERLINDA T. CUACHON, CLERK OF COURT, AND FE P. ALEJANO, COURT STENOGRAPHER, BOTH OF THE MCTC, ILOG-CANDONI, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL (A.M. NO. P-06-2179, 12 JANUARY 2011, BRION, J.) SUBJECTS: SIMPLE NEGLECT OF DUTY; RESTITUTION DOES NOT ERASE ADMINISTRATIVE LIABILIT; RESTITUTION TEMPERS PENALTY. (BRIEF TITLE: OCA VS. CUACHON ET AL)

        For consideration are the findings and recommendations of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) in its Memorandum of August 26, 2008^[1][1] on the financial audit conducted in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), Ilog-Candoni, Negros Occidental. A financial audit was conducted because of respondent Clerk of Court Merlinda T. Cuachon’s (Cuachon) compulsory retirement on November 25, 2005. The audit covered transactions from September 1, 2000 to September 30, 2005, and included the books of account of respondent Fe P. Alejano (Alejano), Court Stenographer and designated Officer-in-Charge (OIC)–Clerk of Court from September 1, 2000 to March 15, 2001. 

          The Initial Report of the OCA’s Financial Audit Team showed that Cuachon had incurred a shortage of P15,065.00 in her Fiduciary Fund collections due to the difference between undeposited collections, amounting to P49,065.00, and withdrawals from cash on hand, amounting to P35,000.00, plus an unauthorized withdrawal of P1,000.00 due to an overwithdrawal under Official Receipt (OR) No. 14847505. Cuachon made restitutions by depositing with the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP), Kabankalan Branch, P4,065.00 and P11,000.00 on January 25, 2006 and February 7, 2006, respectively. On the other hand, Alejano incurred a shortage of P31,800.00 for undeposited collections of P26,800.00 and an unauthorized withdrawal of P5,000.00 on February 28, 2001.  She, likewise, failed to account for two hundred (200) pieces of OR, with serial numbers 11653401 to 11653500 and 11654001 to 11654100.

          Also noted in the Initial Report were the following irregularities committed in the administration of the court’s funds: (1) collections were not properly deposited with the LBP within the month they were collected; (2) withdrawals from the Fiduciary Fund were made without supporting documents; (3) cash bond deposits were withdrawn from the undeposited collections; (4) the funds were deposited with the Municipal Treasurer’s Office (MTO), in violation of Supreme Court (SC) Circular No. 50-95; (5) unwithdrawn bail bonds amounting to P151,986.03 (as of September 2005) were still deposited with the MTO; (6) the court’s financial transactions were not recorded in the official cashbooks; and (7) actual cash on hand and the entries reflected in the cashbooks were not reconciled.

        In a Memorandum dated May 12, 2006,^[2][2] the OCA recommended that the Initial Report be docketed as an administrative complaint against respondents Cuachon and Alejano for violation of SC Circular No. 50-95, and that they be fined five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) each for the delay in their deposit of Fiduciary Fund collections. Accordingly, the Court formally docketed the Initial Report as an administrative complaint and required the respondents to manifest their willingness to submit the case for decision based on the records and/or pleadings filed.^[3][3] 

          In her Manifestation,^[4][4] Cuachon acknowledged: the violations she committed caused by her poor record keeping of court transactions, resulting in her cash shortages; her delay in the deposit or remittance of collections; and her unauthorized withdrawals. She attributed her shortcomings to her unfamiliarity with accounting and bookkeeping principles, and with the Court’s circulars on the proper administration of court funds. She claimed that she incurred the shortages with no intention to defraud the Court or the government. She also faulted the Office of the Clerk of Court in the MCTC, Ilog-Candoni, for not having an updated compilation of the Court’s issuances that could guide her in her work, and the court’s Property Division for turning a deaf ear to her repeated requests for cashbooks. Ultimately, she asked this Court to grant her leniency and to allow her to enjoy her retirement benefits in full since she had restituted her shortages by depositing the amounts of these shortages with the LBP.

          After considering Cuachon’s explanation, the OCA maintained its recommendation to impose a fine of P5,000.00, to be deposited with the Judiciary Development Fund, in order to compensate the government for the lost interest income caused by her delay in the deposit or remittance of Fiduciary Fund collections.^[5][5]  In compliance with our Resolution,^[6][6] Cuachon expressed her willingness to submit the case for resolution based on the records and/or pleadings filed.  She also asked for the early resolution of her case^[7][7] and for the immediate release of her retirement benefits and the monetary value of her leave credits.  She claimed that she needed the money to buy her diabetes and hypertension medications. The Court noted her letters and motions in its subsequent resolutions.

          Alejano, on the other hand, also explained in her Letter of July 14, 2006^[8][8]  the circumstances behind her shortages and the loss or misplacement of receipts.  She faulted the lack of a proper turnover of documents and cash bonds from the outgoing Clerk of Court at the time she was designated as OIC-Clerk of Court.  She also alleged that the newly renovated building that housed most of their court records was infested by termites, and many court documents – including the receipts already audited by the OCA – were lost there. Accompanying Alejano’s letter-explanation were additional documents that could be useful in reducing her remaining accountability, and her humble request that the Court guide her on how to resolve her problem.

In a Resolution dated July 11, 2007,^[9][9] the Court directed Alejano: to pay and deposit her shortage of P12,800.00 in the Fiduciary Fund (which amount resulted from the re-computation of Alejano’s accountability based on additional documents presented); to furnish the Fiscal Monitoring Division, Court Management Office, OCA, with the machine-validated deposit slip as proof of compliance thereto; and to explain why she failed to record in the cashbook and report to the Court the amount of one thousand pesos (P1,000.00) she had collected pertaining to the unaccounted and missing OR No. 116544551 dated December 12, 2000.

In the same resolution, the Court also directed Judge Victor P. Magahud (Presiding Judge of the MCTC, Ilog-Candoni, Negros Occidental) to submit an inventory of cases with unwithdrawn cash bonds, indicating their OR numbers and the dates when they were issued by the court; to investigate the missing ORs with serial numbers 11653401 to 11653500, 11653452 to 11653500 and 11654001 to 11654100; and to submit a report and recommendation regarding these matters. The Court received Judge Magahud’s Report on December 7, 2007.^[10][10]

In a Letter dated March 28, 2008,^[11][11] Alejano asked the Court, for clearance purposes, for a clarification of the status of her accountability.  She also stated that she had tried her best to recover the necessary documents to prove that the funds were not used for her personal gain. As of November 14, 2007, Alejano’s remaining accountability showed a balance of nine thousand eight hundred pesos (P9,800.00), after the OCA considered the additional documents she had submitted.

After a careful review of the records, the OCA found both respondents guilty of simple neglect of duty for violating SC Circular No. 50-95.  This circular specifies the guidelines on the proper collection and deposit of court fiduciary funds.  The records showed that Cuachon and Alejano failed to deposit their collections within twenty-four (24) hours, in violation of the circular.  Also, the shortages incurred by the respondents were due to their failure to account for their collections, which could have been avoided had they immediately remitted or deposited these collections with the LBP.  Due to the delayed remittance of collections, the cash on hand was used to pay for other withdrawals, i.e., undeposited collections were used to pay for cash bond withdrawals instead of withdrawing their cash bond equivalent from the Fiduciary Fund, thus, circumventing the system of “check and balance.” Lastly, the respondents made withdrawals from the Fiduciary Fund without the necessary supporting documents. Under SC Circular No. 50-95, no withdrawals are allowed unless there is a lawful order of the court with jurisdiction over the subject matter involved.

THE COURT’S RULING

    We find the OCA’s recommended fine to be appropriate and in accord with jurisprudence.  We disagree, however, with the OCA’s finding that the respondents were only liable for simple neglect of duty.  We find both respondents liable for gross neglect of duty for the irregularities they committed in the administration of court funds.

The settled rule is that a clerk of court is grossly negligent for his or her failure to promptly remit or deposit cash collections with the local or nearest LBP Branch, in accordance with Court administrative circulars and issuances.^[12][12] No protestation of good faith can override the mandatory observance of court circulars which are designed to promote full accountability of government funds.^[13][13] Restitution of the amount of the shortages does not erase administrative liability.^[14][14]

          The irregularities committed by both respondents were direct violations of SC Circular No. 50-95.^[15][15]  This circular mandates that all collections from bail bonds, rental deposits, and other fiduciary collections should be deposited with the LBP upon receipt by the Clerk of Court within twenty-four (24) hours; the circular also requires that only one depository bank be maintained.  In localities where there are no branches of the LBP, fiduciary collections should be deposited by the Clerk of Court with the Provincial, City or Municipal Treasurer. 

    Gross negligence in the performance of duty is considered a grave offense for which the penalty of dismissal is imposed, even for the first offense.^[16][16] This Court has ordered the dismissal of clerks of court and other court personnel for failure to deposit fiduciary funds in authorized government depository banks.^[17][17]  We cannot countenance any conduct, act or omission, committed by those involved in administering justice, that violate the norm of public accountability and diminish the faith of the people in the Judiciary.^[18][18]  However, since both respondents have retired from the service, while Ms. Cuachon – though belatedly – restituted her shortages, we find the imposition of a fine to be the appropriate penalty in accordance with our previous rulings.^[19][19]

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds as follows:

1.     MERLINDA T. CUACHON, Clerk of Court, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Ilog-Candoni, Negros Occidental, GUILTY of gross neglect of duty for which she is FINED five thousand pesos (P5,000.00), to be deducted from her retirement benefits.

2.     FE P. ALEJANO, Court Stenographer, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Ilog-Candoni, Negros Occidental, GUILTY of gross neglect of duty for which she is FINED five thousand pesos (P5,000.00). She is also directed to RESTITUTE the amount of nine thousand eight hundred pesos (P9,800.00) as payment for her remaining accountability. Both amounts are to be deducted from her retirement benefits.

3.     The Financial Management Office, Office of the Court Administrator, is directed to RELEASE respondent MERLINDA T. CUACHON’s retirement benefits and the monetary value of her accrued leave credits, deducting therefrom five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) as payment for the fine imposed.

4.     The Financial Management Office, Office of the Court Administrator, is directed to RELEASE respondent FE P. ALEJANO’s retirement benefits and the monetary value of her accrued leave credits, deducting therefrom five thousand pesos (P5,000.00), as payment for the fine imposed, and nine thousand eight hundred pesos (P9,800.00), as payment for her remaining accountability.

5.     Presiding Judge VICTOR P. MAGAHUD of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Ilog-Candoni, Negros Occidental, is directed to CLOSELY MONITOR the financial transactions of the court; otherwise, he can be held equally liable for the infractions by the employees under his supervision.  He is advised to STUDY and IMPLEMENT procedures that shall strengthen the court’s internal control over financial transactions.

SO ORDERED.

ARTURO D. BRION

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

Associate Justice

CASE 2011-0028: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. LUIS PAJARIN y DELA CRUZ and EFREN PALLAYA y TUVIERA (G.R. No. 190640, 12 JANUARY 2011, ABAD, J.) SUBJECTS: ILLEGAL DRUGS; FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH PROCEDURE IN TAKING CUSTODY OF DRUGS; FAILURE TO IDENTIFY SAME SUBSTANCES. BRIEF TITLE: PEOPLE VS. PAJARIN).

x ————————————————————– x

DECISION

ABAD, J.:

          This case is about the need for the prosecution and all law enforcement agencies involved in illegal drugs operations to ensure proper observance of the rules governing entrapment of peddlers of prohibited substances.

The Facts and the Case

The City Prosecutor of Manila charged the accused Luis Pajarin and Efren Pallaya before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila in Criminal Cases 05-237756 and 05-237757 with violation of Section 5 in relation to Sections 26 and 11 (3) in relation to Section 13, respectively, of Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

          The prosecution presented PO2 Nestor Lehetemas, member of the buy-bust team and PO2 James Nolan Ibañez, the poseur-buyer.  They testified that on June 1, 2005 at around 10:00 p.m., an informant arrived at their Station Anti-Illegal Drugs (SAID) with the report that drugs would be sold on P. Ocampo and Dominga Streets the next day at around 5:00 pm.  As the poseur-buyer, PO2 Ibañez marked a P500.00 bill with SAID on top of its serial number.

          On June 2, 2005 the buy-bust team went to the site of the operation on board a Tamaraw FX which they parked near Dominga Street.  The informant pointed to the two accused, Luis Pajarin and Efren Pallaya.  They stood 10 to 20 steps away beside a red scooter.  PO2 Ibañez and the informant approached them.  After the informant introduced PO2 Ibañez as an interested buyer, the police officer bought shabu from the two, using the marked P500.00 bill.  Pajarin opened the compartment of the red scooter and took from it one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance.  When Pallaya asked for the money, PO2 Ibañez handed it to him.  Then Pajarin gave one plastic sachet containing the suspected shabu to the officer, who raised his right hand as a pre-arranged signal.  PO2 Ibañez’s companions immediately rushed to the group.  PO2 Ibañez grabbed Pallaya.  Pajarin tried to escape but PO2 Lehetemas got hold of him.

          The police searched the red scooter’s compartment and recovered another plastic sachet containing the same substance.  They then brought the accused to their station.  The arresting officers turned over the seized suspected shabu to PO3 Roel Young who marked the plastic sachet seized from the scooter with the letters “ETP,” and the sachet Pajarin handed over with the letters “LDCP.”  Chemistry Report D-369-05 showed that upon examination of the submitted specimen, the same yielded positive result for Methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a regulated drug.

          The defense had a completely different version.  Pajarin said that at around 2:00 p.m. of June 2, 2005 he was at Pallaya’s house, repairing the latter’s motor pump.  As he left the house and got into the street, someone hit his helmet, grabbed him, and dragged him into a Tamaraw FX.  They then brought him back to Pallaya’s house where four police officers got in and brought Pallaya out with them after about three minutes.  The officers brought the two accused to the police station where they were investigated.  PO2 Ibañez showed Pajarin a plastic sachet which he supposedly recovered from Pajarin’s scooter.  Pajarin denied owning the sachet.  It was a police officer who drove the scooter to the police station. 

          For his part, Pallaya testified that on June 2, 2005 he was taking a bath at the fourth floor of his four-storey house when he heard knocking at the door.  When he opened it, he was surprised to see four men there, claiming to be police officers.  They broke open the doors of the house from the ground to the third floor.  The officers ordered him to dress up and forced him to go with them.  Pallaya asked for a warrant of arrest or a search warrant but he got no response from them.  They made him board a Tamaraw FX where Pajarin sat.  They then brought the accused to the police station.

          On March 31, 2008 the RTC found both accused guilty of the crime charged and imposed on them the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 in Criminal Case 05-237756.  In Criminal Case 05-237757, the RTC sentenced Pajarin to suffer 12 years and 1 day to 17 years and 4 months of imprisonment and to pay a fine of P300,000.00.  The RTC absolved Pallaya of this second offense. 

          On appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC 03291, the latter rendered a decision dated September 30, 2009, affirming the RTC decision, hence the present appeal to this Court.

The Issues Presented

Accused Pajarin and Pallaya raise two issues:

1.       Whether or not the CA erred in not excluding the evidence of the seized shabu on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove their integrity by establishing the chain of custody of the same until they got to the trial court; and

2.       Whether or not for this reason the CA erred in affirming their conviction.

The Rulings of the Court

          Appellants chiefly argue that the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation failed to comply with Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. 9165, which requires them to take immediate inventory of and photograph the seized item in the presence of the accused or his representative or responsible third persons mentioned but always taking care that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized articles are preserved. 

          The Court has held in numerous cases that the failure of the police to comply with the procedure laid down in R.A. 9165 would not render void the seizure of the prohibited substance for as long as the apprehending officers give justifiable reason for their imperfect conduct^[1][1] and show that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated items had not been compromised.^[2][2] 

Here, the prosecution failed to show that the substances allegedly seized from the accused were the same substances presented in court to prove their guilt.  Usually, the seized article changes hands from the police officer who takes it from the accused, to the supervising officer at their station, to the messenger who brings them to the police crime laboratory, and then to the court where it is adduced as evidence.  Since custody and possession change over time, it has been held indispensable that the officer who seized the article places it in a plastic container unless it is already in one, seals it if yet unsealed, and puts his marking on the cover.  In this way there is assurance, upon inspection, that the substance reaches the laboratory in the same condition it was seized from the accused.^[3][3] 

Here, the police officers did not mark the sealed plastic sachets to show that they were the same things they took from the accused.  Rather, the marking on the items were done by the station investigator who would have no way of knowing that the substances were really seized from the accused.  The marking of captured items immediately after they are seized from the accused is the starting point in the custodial link.   This step is vital because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference.  Failure to place such markings paves the way for swapping, planting, and contamination of the evidence.^[4][4]  These lapses seriously cast doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti, warranting acquittal on reasonable doubt.^[5][5]

Further, as a rule, the police chemist who examines a seized substance should ordinarily testify that he received the seized article as marked, properly sealed and intact; that he resealed it after examination of the content; and that he placed his own marking on the same to ensure that it could not be tampered pending trial.  In case the parties stipulate to dispense with the attendance of the police chemist, they should stipulate that the latter would have testified that he took the precautionary steps mentioned.  Here, the record fails to show this. 

It is a serious concern that quite often the failure of the police to observe the rules governing buy-bust operations results in acquittals.  Drug enforcement agencies should continually train their officers and agents to observe these rules and transfer out those who would not.  The prosecutors conducting preliminary investigation should not file in court drugs cases where the sworn statements of the police officers, the report of the chemical analyst, and the object evidence do not show compliance with the same.  And trial courts should order the case dismissed and the accused released from detention if on examination the supporting documents are wanting in this respect.  They should not waste their precious time to useless exercise where the police and the prosecution fail to observe the rule of law especially in so serious offenses. 

          WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the decision of the Court of Appeals dated September 30, 2009 in CA-G.R. CR-HC 03291 as well as the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 2, in Criminal Cases 05-237756 and 05-237757, and ACQUITS the accused-appellants Luis Pajarin and Efren Pallaya on the ground of reasonable doubt.  The Court orders their immediate RELEASE from custody unless they are being held for some other lawful cause.

          SO ORDERED.

ROBERTO A. ABAD 

                                                              Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ANTONIO T. CARPIO

Associate Justice

ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA      DIOSDADO M. PERALTA

                  Associate Justice                                    Associate Justice

JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA

Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

          I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

                                                      ANTONIO T. CARPIO

                                                   Associate Justice

                                Chairperson, Second Division                  

CERTIFICATION

          Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

                                                             RENATO C. CORONA

                                                            Chief Justice