FIRST
DIVISION
JUDGE
SIBANAH E. USMAN,
Petitioner,
A. M. No. P-97-1255
October 2, 1997
-versus-
JULIUS
G. CABE, Sheriff IV,
Respondent.
R
E S O L U T I O N
HERMOSISIMA, JR., J.:
In a letter
dated November 24, 1995, Judge Sibanah
E. Usman, Presiding Judge of Branch 28 of the Regional Trial Court of
Catbalogan,
Samar, complained that one of the employees in his sala, namely, Julius
Cabe, Sheriff IV, had, without authority and prior permission from the
Branch Clerk of Court, taken out the records of Civil Cases Nos. 6748
and
6781 and managed to have certain orders and other documents included in
said records, photocopied at the xerox center located at the Provincial
Capitol. Judge Usman also disclosed that respondent Cabe had committed
several other infractions and acts of misbehavior like incurring
absences
without securing the proper leave, coming to the office drunk, uttering
insulting and unsavory words to his fellow court employees and being
involved
in the loss of four [4] firearms [court exhibits] at the time that he
was
court officer-in-charge.
In the 1st
Indorsement Letter dated November 16,
1995 issued and signed by Executive Judge Sinforiano A. Monsanto of the
Regional Trial Court of Catbalogan, Samar, who conducted a Summary
Investigation,
Judge Monsanto stated that he was unable to interrogate the respondent
who did not report for work on the date of the hearing. Judge Monsanto,
however, recommended the prosecution of the case against the
respondent,
because "there is more than sufficient evidence to show that Mr. Cabe
has
violated Section 14, Rule 136 of the Rules of Court" when he had taken
out, without proper permission or authority, certain records of several
cases kept in the Office of the Branch Clerk of Court.cralaw:red
In his defense,
respondent contends that he was
on sick leave from November 15 to 17, 1995 when Judge Monsanto
scheduled
the hearing. Respondent also discounts the accusations of Martin G.
Latorre,
Virginia R Nunez and Armie P. Liad who all executed affidavits alleging
that respondent was drunk in the afternoon of November 14, 1995 during
which time, he furiously berated them about the delay in the
performance
of their duty as stenographers, which incident, respondent claims, is
at
most an isolated one. According to respondent, based on feedback from
lawyers
as to the delay caused the judicial proceedings due to the slow process
of transcribing stenographic notes, all that he had wanted to do was to
prod the stenographers to be more efficient and prompt in performing
their
tasks.cralaw:red
As to the charge
of taking out of court, records
and having them photocopied without the prior permission of the Branch
Clerk of Court, respondent argues that on the two cited instances on
October
28, 1995 and November 13, 1995, he faithfully complied with the
procedures
for photocopying court records.cralaw:red
The issues having
been joined, We referred the
case to Hon. Cesar R. Cinco, Executive Judge, Regional Trial Court,
Branch
19, Catarman, Northern Samar, for investigation, report and
recommendation.
In his report, Judge Cinco made findings only with respect to the
charges
regarding the photocopying of court records and drunkenness, leaving
the
charge regarding the loss of four [4] firearms consisting of exhibits
in
a criminal case the investigation of which had been entrusted to the
Presiding
Judge of Branch 27 pursuant to Our Resolution promulgated in A. M. No.
94-10-317-RTC.cralaw:red
Judge Cinco found
that respondent obtained prior
permission from Ramil G. Bernales, the clerk-in-charge of Civil Cases,
in order to photocopy certain court records, but pointed out the slight
irregularity in the procedure adopted by respondent on November 13,
1995
when instead of waiting, as instructed by Bernales, for the court aide,
Benjamin C. Garcia, to hand-carry the court records and photocopy them
outside of the court premises, respondent himself brought the case
folio
outside of the court premises and had them photocopied at the xerox
center
near the Capitol without waiting for Garcia to at least accompany him.cralaw:red
On the charge of
drunkenness and misbehavior,
Judge Cinco concluded that while respondent admitted to having consumed
some amount of alcoholic drink in the afternoon of November 14, 1995,
respondent
was not necessarily drunk or intoxicated when he remonstrated the
stenographers
to finish with dispatch the transcripts of their notes in view of the
complaint
of the lawyers regarding the delay in the trial proceedings caused by
the
slow process of transcription.cralaw:red
For his part,
Judge Cinco recommended that the
charges against respondent be dismissed with a warning against the
repetition
of the same acts at some future time.cralaw:red
We disagree to a
certain extent.cralaw:red
We cannot fathom
how, on October 28, 1995, which
was a Saturday, respondent obtained Bernales' permission to photocopy
certain
court records, when the latter was not around on that day, the same
being
a non-working day. In fact, while Bernales alleged in his affidavit
that
his permission was sought by respondent on November 13, 1995, no
similar
allegation can be found as regards the incident on October 28, 1995.
What
respondent was able to do on that Saturday, as confirmed by Garcia's
affidavit,
was to hail Garcia from his residence in the morning of October 28,
1995
and to insist that Garcia and respondent go to the court premises, get
the court records, and have them photocopied outside. Garcia, however,
had no authority to consent to the taking out of those court records.
Respondent,
therefore, acted on his own without the requisite prior consent of the
clerk-in-charge.cralaw:red
As Bernales
acknowledged in his affidavit, respondent
did obtain his permission to have the same court records photocopied
the
second time on November 13, 1995. However, he gave specific
instructions
that Garcia should be the one to hand-carry the court records and to
have
them photocopied outside the court premises. With full knowledge of
Bernales'
instructions, respondent defiantly himself took the court records and
had
them photocopied.cralaw:red
While these acts
seem minor infractions of procedural
rules, this Court cannot and will not countenance the same. There are
reasons
for these rules and in this case, We cannot overemphasize the necessity
for a regulated, orderly, and careful handling of court records the
loss,
tampering, or any other form of alteration or destruction of which does
not only contribute to inordinate delay in judicial proceedings but
more
importantly erodes upon the credibility and reliability of our courts.cralaw:red
Finally, on the
charge of drunkenness, We agree
with Judge Cinco that the incident involving respondent was an isolated
one and that respondent's acrimonious remarks directed against the
stenographers
were not insults against their person. Respondent, it appears, was
simply
overeager to emphasize the need for the stenographers to finish their
transcripts
of stenographic notes within a reasonable time, their recent failure in
which has often been cited by the lawyers as the cause for the delay in
the trial proceedings.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, in
view of the foregoing, respondent
Julius Cabe, Sheriff IV assigned to RTC, Branch 28, Catbalogan Samar,
is
[a] SUSPENDED for five [5] days for unauthorized taking out of court
records
on a Saturday with warning that repetition thereof will merit a more
severe
punishment; and [b] with respect to his coming to court drunk, warned
to
avoid a repetition of the same.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr.,
Vitug and Kapunan, JJ., concur.
Bellosillo, J., took no part. |