EN
BANC
RE:
ISSUANCE OF
SUBPOENA
TO PRISONER NICANOR
DE GUZMAN, JR.chanrobles virtual law library
A.
M.
No. 97-2-12-MTC
August
21, 1997
R
E S O L U
T I O N
KAPUNAN, J.:
In the wake of media
reports that ex-Congressman Nicanor de Guzman, Jr. of Nueva Ecija,
presently
detained in the National Bilibid Prison on a life sentence, celebrated
his birthday in his hometown in Nueva Ecija on January 16, 17 and 18,
1997,
it was ascertained that in an Order dated November 27, 1996, Acting
Presiding
Judge Geminiano A. Eduardo of the Municipal Trial Court of San
Leonardo,
Nueva Ecija directed the issuance of a subpoena in LRC File No. 9-96
entitled
"Petition for the Issuance of Second Owner's Duplicate Copy of TCT No.
NT-185476 of the Register of Deeds of Nueva Ecija, Nicanor de Guzman,
Jr.,
petitioner," requiring the latter to appear at the said Court for
hearing
on January 16, 1997 at 8:30 in the morning.
As soon as the MTC Judge
signed the order, Clerk of Court II Juana F. Edades issued a subpoena
to
petitioner with a First Indorsement, dated December 5, 1996, forwarding
it to the National Bilibid Prisons, Muntinlupa City.cralaw:red
In a letter dated January
6, 1997 addressed to the Clerk of Court, MTC of San Leonardo, Nueva
Ecija,
which was received on January 10, 1997, Penal Superintendent Juanito S.
Leopando of the Bureau of Prisons gave the information that "prisoner
Nicanor
de Guzman is a life termer, hence, permission from the Supreme Court
must
be secured first to enable this office to bring prisoner de Guzman
before
the Honorable Court in compliance with Administrative Circular No. 6
dated
December 5, 1977 of the Honorable Chief Justice of the Supreme Court."
Administrative Circular
No. 6 dated December 6, 1977 provides that:
xxx pursuant
to Administrative Circular No. 2 dated December 2, 1976, no prisoner
sentenced
to death or life imprisonment or detained upon legal process for the
commission
of any offense punishable by death or life imprisonment conferred in
NBP
is allowed to be brought outside of the said penal institution for
appearance
or attendance in any court except when the Supreme Court authorizes the
Judge, upon proper application, to effect the transfer of the said
prisoner.
In addition, the said Circular directs every judge in Metro Manila and
the Provinces of Rizal, Bulacan, Cavite and Laguna who requires the
appearance
or attendance of any of the aforestated prisoners confined in the New
Bilibid
Prisons in any judicial proceedings to conduct such proceeding within
the
premises of the said penal institution.
In a letter, dated January
21, 1991, the Office of the Court Administrator thereby directed Acting
Presiding Judge Geminiano A. Eduardo and Clerk of Court Juana F. Edades
to explain why no disciplinary action should be taken against them for
issuing said subpoena without authority from the Supreme Court in
violation
of the aforementioned circular.
In his letter explanation,
Judge Eduardo stated:
1. That I admits [sic]
that a certain Nicanor de Guzman, Jr. was subpoenad [sic]
by the Municipal Trial Court of San Leonardo, Nueva Ecija on December
5,
1996 to appear for hearing on January 16, 1997, at 8:30 in the morning
in connection with LRC Case No 9-96.
2. That the said
subpoena
was issued by the Clerk of Court in compliance with the order of the
Court
dated November 27, 1996.
3. That as soon as
the undersigned had signed the said order dated November 27, 1996, the
Clerk of Court Juana F. Edades issue [sic] a
subpoena
to the petitioner Nicanor de Guzman Jr. a resident of San Vicente
Homes,
Gapan, Nueva Ecija without knowing that the said Nicanor de Guzman Jr.
is the same Nicanorde de Guzman Jr. a life termer presently detained at
the New Bilibid Prison, Muntinglupa [sic]
City.
Hence, it is on this atmosphere that the subpoena was issued.
4. That the
undersigned
was only appointed Municipal Trial Court Judge in May 1983 and
administrative
Circular Nos. 2 and 6 was [sic] issued in
1977
and therefore admits that we have no copy of the said circulars on file
in our Office, otherwise if I knew that the person to be subpoenad is
life
termer Nicanor de Guzman and I have the copy of the said circular I
would
have instructed my Clerk of Court to desist from issuing a subpoena.
5. That at present
the undersigned has been acting as Presiding Judge of the towns of San
Leonardo and Peñaranda, Nueva Ecija and special cases in Gapan,
Nueva Ecija aside from his permanent assignment at General Tinio, Nueva
Ecija, and because of pressure of work I have no more time to verify
the
real identity of the person to be subpoenaed as in this particular
incident.
6. That the
undersigned
knew only on January 10, 1997 when we received a letter dated January
6,
1997 from the Penal Superintendent IV Juanito Leopando with the
information
that Nicanor de Guzman, Jr. a life termer confined at the New Bilibid
Prison
and consequently a request must first be filed with the, Honorable
Supreme
Court to enable them to bring Nicanor de Guzman, Jr. before the Court
on
January 16, 1997, at 8:30 in the morning.
Verily, the said
Nicanor
de Guzman Jr. was brought out from his detention cell not on the
strength
of the subpoena issued by the Clerk of Court of the Municipal Trial
Court
of San Leonardo, Nueva Ecija, but by another subpoena issued on January
14 and 15, 1997 by another Agency of the government over which the
undersigned
has no jurisdiction.
7. That the presence
of Nicanor de Guzman Jr. a life termer is necessary in LRC Case No.
9-96
especially in the identification and marking of the documentary
exhibits.
8. That if ever a
subpoena
was issued to Nicanor de Guzman Jr., yet the latter disregarded the
said
subpoena and did not appear in Court on January 16, 1997.
9. That the violation
if over committed, has not been deliberate, unintentional and without
malice
and in good faith and promised not to happen again in the future to
come.
It is respectfully
prayed, therefore, that due consideration, compassion and understanding
be accorded the foregoing explanation.
The Clerk of Court, on
the other hand, explained that when she issued the subpoena, she was
not
aware of such circular considering that it was issued way back in 1977
and that the same was not on file in the usual place of safekeeping in
the office. She further stated that after she issued the subpoena to
Nicanor
de Guzman, similar subpoena in a certain criminal case was also issued
by the Prosecutor's Office at Gapan, Nueva Ecija. Finally, she averred
that de Guzman did not appear in court on January 16, 1997, thereby
showing
that the subpoena issued by the MTC of San Leonardo, Nueva Ecija "had
not
been honored by him."
The Court finds the
above explanations unacceptable. It cannot allow such misconduct to
pass
without sanction. Respondents pretended ignorance of the existence of
such
circular because no copy was on file or that the Judge was appointed
much
later than the date of issuance of said circular cannot be a valid
excuse.
Circular No. 13 dated
July 7, 87, particularly enjoins "all members of the judiciary to keep
abreast of the rulings and doctrines laid down by the Supreme Court and
apply them to appropriate cases."
In Ramirez v. Corpuz-Macandog,
144 SCRA 462 [1996], the Court has stressed that:
Judges are required
to observe due care in the performance of their official duties. They
are
likewise charged with the knowledge of internal rules and procedures,
especially
those which relate to the scope of their authority. They are duty bound
to observe and abide by these rules and procedures, designed as they
are,
primarily to ensure the orderly administration of justice.
With the foregoing
exhortation
from the Court, respondent Judge's unawareness of the circular is
unexcusable.
He has been in the Judiciary since 1983. With the length of service and
experience in the bench, he cannot justifiably feign ignorance of the
existence
of Circular No. 6.
In Ting v. Atal, 231 SCRA
80 [1994], we explained that:
xxx While it is true
that respondent Judge failed in his duty to be updated in his knowledge
of law, good faith and the lack of intent to cause prejudice or damage
should be considered in his favor. In Consolidated Bank and Trust
Corporation
v. Hon. Dionisio M. Capistrano, this Court stated:
Administrative Circular
No. 6 is not as obscure as respondents suggest it to be. While this may
have been issued on December 5, 1977, by the then Chief Justice Fred
Ruiz
Castro, it is an important rule for all courts to take notice of and to
follow in the issuance of subpoenas to witnesses serving or detained on
a life sentence, necessitating meticulous care and extra precaution to
prevent escape. There is no reason why respondent Judge may not be
aware
of such circular when it is so necessary for the proper administration
of justice.
In any event, respondents
Judge and Clerk of Court cannot invoke alleged oversight since their
attention
was duly called by the NBP Superintendent in a letter dated January 6,
1997, informing them that Nicanor de Guzman, Jr., who was serving life
imprisonment at NBP cannot be released to attend the hearing of a case
without the Supreme Court's permission, pursuant to Circular No. 6.
Said
letter was received by respondent Judge on January 10, 1997. Despite
such
information, respondent Judge failed to act to rectify his error. He
did
not do anything to recall the subpoena or to secure permission or a
ratification
thereof from this Court. From the time that he received the letter
until
the scheduled hearing on January 16, 1997, respondent Judge had at
least
six (6) days to act with reasonable dispatch upon learning of such
mistake.cralaw:red
Moreover, Circular No.
6 also provides that it was a judge's duty to "examine and study
carefully
any application for the issuance of subpoena or summons involving
detention
prisoners filed with their court" If, indeed, the Judge was not remiss
in his duty in carefully examining the subpoena, then he would have
clearly
noticed that Nicanor de Guzman, Jr., a resident of San Vicente Homes,
Gapan,
Nueva Ecija, is the same Nicanor de Guzman, Jr., a life termer
presently
detained at the NBP.cralaw:red
While Clerk of Court
Edades admitted that she simply addressed the subpoena to Nicanor de
Guzman,
Jr. thru the Director of the NBP, Muntinlupa when she was informed that
a similar subpoena in a certain criminal case was also issued by the
prosecutor's
office at Gapan, Nueva Ecija, she was at the very least negligent in
the
performance of her official function as Clerk of Court. Her position as
clerk of court is just as essential in any judicial system. She must
realize
that her administrative functions are vital and must, therefore keep
abreast
of circulars and rules that are important and necessary for a prompt
and
proper administration of justice.cralaw:red
Likewise, We fault her
for her deliberate inaction on her violation after her attention was
called
by the NBP Superintendent.cralaw:red
This Court has not been
wanting in its warnings that judges and all court employees should
endeavor
to maintain at all times the confidence and high respect accorded to
those
who wield the gavel of justice. Respondents' actions indeed show their
lack of familiarity with the laws, rules and regulations as to
undermine
the public confidence in the integrity of our courts [Cuaresma v.
Aguilar,
226 SCRA 73 (1993)].cralaw:red
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING,
the Court finds respondents guilty of gross negligence in the
performance
of their duty and hereby IMPOSES a fine of Ten Thousand (P10,000.00)
Pesos
upon Judge Geminiano A. Eduardo and Five Thousand (P5,000.00) Pesos
upon
Clerk of Court Juana F. Edades with a stern warning that a repetition
of
the same or similar act in the future shall be dealt with more severely.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Narvasa,
C.J.,
Padilla, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug,
Mendoza, Francisco, Hermosisima, Jr., Panganiban and Torres, Jr., JJ.,
concur.
|