March 2008 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > March 2008 Resolutions >
[A.M. OCA I.P.L No. 05-2349-RTJ : March 12, 2008] JOCELYN SAQUING V. JUDGE JIMMY H.F, LUCZON, JR., ASSISTING JUDGE CONRADO MANAUIS, ANDATTY. NOEL MORA :
[A.M. OCA I.P.L No. 05-2349-RTJ : March 12, 2008]
JOCELYN SAQUING V. JUDGE JIMMY H.F, LUCZON, JR., ASSISTING JUDGE CONRADO MANAUIS, ANDATTY. NOEL MORA
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 12 March 2008:
A.M. OCA I.P.L No. 05-2349-RTJ (Jocelyn Saquing v. Judge Jimmy H.F, Luczon, Jr., Assisting Judge Conrado Manauis, andAtty. Noel Mora)
This is an administrative complaint charging respondents Judge Jimmy H. F. Luczon, Jr., Assisting Judge Conrado Manauis, and Atty. Noel Mora with ignorance of the law and violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct relative to Criminal Case No. 10478 entitled People of the Philippines v. Paulino Mora and Manuela Aspa for estafa before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 1 in Tuguegarao, Cagayan.
Complainant Jocelyn Saquing claims she was an overseas worker who upon her return used her savings to purchase a parcel of land from the spouses Paulino and Manuela Mora who claimed to be owners of 7,828 square meters of land in Penablanca, Cagayan. After paying PhP 550,000, Saquing was issued a receipt by the seller's lawyer, Atty. Noel Mora. Upon payment of PhP 232,800, the balance of the price, the sellers failed to give Saquing the title of the land despite assurances from Atty. Mora that the spouses would. Subsequently, Atty. Mora prepared an Absolute Deed of Sale of the land that the spouses signed but which Saquing refused to sign since she found out that what the spouses sold her was not the land but only the rights thereto as the spouses were not registered owners but only applicants/intervenors in a land claim before the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Consequently, Saquing filed a complaint against the spouses for estafa, docketed as Criminal Case No. 10478 before the RTC, presided by Judge Jimmy Luczon, Jr. and Assisting Judge Conrado Manauis.
In the course of the trial, the spouses submitted tax declarations on the land as property bail bond. Judge Luczon approved the property bonds. When complainant filed a motion to cancel the bond, Judge Luczon denied the same. Thereafter, Assisting Judge Manauis likewise denied the second motion to cancel the bail bond for being pro forma, and the subsequent motion for reconsideration.
Aggrieved by the denials of her motions to cancel the bonds, Saquing filed the instant administrative case against Judges Luczon and Manauis, alleging that Judge Luczon acted with undue haste in approving the property bail bonds without regard to the qualification of the surety when he relied solely on the tax declarations of land still classified as public land. She also complained that the Affidavit of Justification on the bond was taken before the Clerk of Court and not before the judge, as the rules require.
Judge Luczon denied he acted hastily when he approved the property bail bond as he did review the documentary evidence before he approved the bond. He insists that although the land was not yet titled, the surety meets the two requirements that (1) the surety is the one in whose name the property was declared for taxation purposes; and (2) the taxes on the property had been paid at the time it was offered as bail.
For his part, Judge Manauis explained that when the second motion to cancel bail was heard in open court, he persuaded the spouses and their counsel to replace the bond but the couple explained that they had no other property for replacement.
After investigation and evaluation, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) concluded that the complaint against Judge Manauis lacked merit while the one against Judge Luczon was meritorious.
We agree with the OCA.
As to the complaint against Judge Manauis, the OCA is correct that the proper remedy in assailing the denial of complainant's second motion to cancel bail is not an administrative complaint but to file an appeal. Time and again we have said so and in such cases as cited by the OCA, e.g. Flores v. Abesamis[1], Santos v. Orlino[2], and Dionisio v. Escano[3]. The filing of disciplinary proceedings and filing of criminal actions against a judge are not substitute remedies for available judicial remedies. It is only after judicial remedies have been exhausted and after the appellate courts have spoken with finality that the administrative remedies may be resorted to. Thus, the complaint against Judge Manauis is dismissed for lack of merit.
As regards Judge Luczon, we regret that as found by the OCA, Judge Luczon has shown a serious lack of understanding of the law on the necessity for a hearing on an application for bail. Before granting or denying bail, it is imperative for a judge to observe the following ; (1) notify the prosecutor of the hearing on the application for bail or require him to submit his recommendation; (2) conduct a hearing for the application for bail whether or not the application presents evidence to show that the guilt of the accused is strong, to enable the court to exercise its discretion; (3) decide whether the evidence of guilt of the accused is strong based on the summary of evidence of the prosecution; and (4) if the guilt of the accused is strong, discharge the accused upon approval of the bailbond.[4] Under the present rules, a hearing on an application for bail is mandatory�whether bail is a matter of right or of discretion. In all cases, whether bail is a matter of right or of discretion, reasonable notice of hearing must be given to the prosecutor, or at least his recommendation on the matter must be sought.[5] In this case, Judge Luczon admitted he did not conduct any hearing on the application for bail. The failure of Judge Luczon to follow the basic rules on bail is inexcusable and betrays his gross ignorance of the law. It makes him subject to administrative sanction, it being settled that when the law involved is simple and elementary, lack of observance thereof constitutes gross ignorance of the law.[6]
Saquing likewise complains that the Affidavit of Justification was taken before the Clerk of Court and not before the judge. All applications for bail before their approval of the judge concerned is coursed thru the Clerk of Court or his duly authorized personnel who sees to it that the bond is in order. While the duty rests with the Clerk of Court to ascertain that the bond is in order and all the requisites are complied with, the judge is also bound to review the documents before approving the same.[7]
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby ADOPTS the recommendation of the OCA, as follows:
A.M. OCA I.P.L No. 05-2349-RTJ (Jocelyn Saquing v. Judge Jimmy H.F, Luczon, Jr., Assisting Judge Conrado Manauis, andAtty. Noel Mora)
This is an administrative complaint charging respondents Judge Jimmy H. F. Luczon, Jr., Assisting Judge Conrado Manauis, and Atty. Noel Mora with ignorance of the law and violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct relative to Criminal Case No. 10478 entitled People of the Philippines v. Paulino Mora and Manuela Aspa for estafa before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 1 in Tuguegarao, Cagayan.
Complainant Jocelyn Saquing claims she was an overseas worker who upon her return used her savings to purchase a parcel of land from the spouses Paulino and Manuela Mora who claimed to be owners of 7,828 square meters of land in Penablanca, Cagayan. After paying PhP 550,000, Saquing was issued a receipt by the seller's lawyer, Atty. Noel Mora. Upon payment of PhP 232,800, the balance of the price, the sellers failed to give Saquing the title of the land despite assurances from Atty. Mora that the spouses would. Subsequently, Atty. Mora prepared an Absolute Deed of Sale of the land that the spouses signed but which Saquing refused to sign since she found out that what the spouses sold her was not the land but only the rights thereto as the spouses were not registered owners but only applicants/intervenors in a land claim before the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Consequently, Saquing filed a complaint against the spouses for estafa, docketed as Criminal Case No. 10478 before the RTC, presided by Judge Jimmy Luczon, Jr. and Assisting Judge Conrado Manauis.
In the course of the trial, the spouses submitted tax declarations on the land as property bail bond. Judge Luczon approved the property bonds. When complainant filed a motion to cancel the bond, Judge Luczon denied the same. Thereafter, Assisting Judge Manauis likewise denied the second motion to cancel the bail bond for being pro forma, and the subsequent motion for reconsideration.
Aggrieved by the denials of her motions to cancel the bonds, Saquing filed the instant administrative case against Judges Luczon and Manauis, alleging that Judge Luczon acted with undue haste in approving the property bail bonds without regard to the qualification of the surety when he relied solely on the tax declarations of land still classified as public land. She also complained that the Affidavit of Justification on the bond was taken before the Clerk of Court and not before the judge, as the rules require.
Judge Luczon denied he acted hastily when he approved the property bail bond as he did review the documentary evidence before he approved the bond. He insists that although the land was not yet titled, the surety meets the two requirements that (1) the surety is the one in whose name the property was declared for taxation purposes; and (2) the taxes on the property had been paid at the time it was offered as bail.
For his part, Judge Manauis explained that when the second motion to cancel bail was heard in open court, he persuaded the spouses and their counsel to replace the bond but the couple explained that they had no other property for replacement.
After investigation and evaluation, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) concluded that the complaint against Judge Manauis lacked merit while the one against Judge Luczon was meritorious.
We agree with the OCA.
As to the complaint against Judge Manauis, the OCA is correct that the proper remedy in assailing the denial of complainant's second motion to cancel bail is not an administrative complaint but to file an appeal. Time and again we have said so and in such cases as cited by the OCA, e.g. Flores v. Abesamis[1], Santos v. Orlino[2], and Dionisio v. Escano[3]. The filing of disciplinary proceedings and filing of criminal actions against a judge are not substitute remedies for available judicial remedies. It is only after judicial remedies have been exhausted and after the appellate courts have spoken with finality that the administrative remedies may be resorted to. Thus, the complaint against Judge Manauis is dismissed for lack of merit.
As regards Judge Luczon, we regret that as found by the OCA, Judge Luczon has shown a serious lack of understanding of the law on the necessity for a hearing on an application for bail. Before granting or denying bail, it is imperative for a judge to observe the following ; (1) notify the prosecutor of the hearing on the application for bail or require him to submit his recommendation; (2) conduct a hearing for the application for bail whether or not the application presents evidence to show that the guilt of the accused is strong, to enable the court to exercise its discretion; (3) decide whether the evidence of guilt of the accused is strong based on the summary of evidence of the prosecution; and (4) if the guilt of the accused is strong, discharge the accused upon approval of the bailbond.[4] Under the present rules, a hearing on an application for bail is mandatory�whether bail is a matter of right or of discretion. In all cases, whether bail is a matter of right or of discretion, reasonable notice of hearing must be given to the prosecutor, or at least his recommendation on the matter must be sought.[5] In this case, Judge Luczon admitted he did not conduct any hearing on the application for bail. The failure of Judge Luczon to follow the basic rules on bail is inexcusable and betrays his gross ignorance of the law. It makes him subject to administrative sanction, it being settled that when the law involved is simple and elementary, lack of observance thereof constitutes gross ignorance of the law.[6]
Saquing likewise complains that the Affidavit of Justification was taken before the Clerk of Court and not before the judge. All applications for bail before their approval of the judge concerned is coursed thru the Clerk of Court or his duly authorized personnel who sees to it that the bond is in order. While the duty rests with the Clerk of Court to ascertain that the bond is in order and all the requisites are complied with, the judge is also bound to review the documents before approving the same.[7]
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby ADOPTS the recommendation of the OCA, as follows:
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
By:
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Asst. Clerk of Court
LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
By:
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Asst. Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] A.M. No. SC-96-1, July 10,1997,275 SCRA 302.
[2] A.M. No. RTJ-98-1418, September 25, 1998, 296 SCRA 101.
[3] 362 Phil. 46 (1999).
[4] Ocenar v. Mabutin, A.M. No. MTJ-05-1582 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 03-1492-MTJ), February 28, 2005, 452 SCRA 377, 382-383
[5] Co v. Plata, A.M. No. MTJ-03-1501 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 02-1261-MTJ), March 14, 2005, 453 SCRA 326, 334.
[6] Emiquez v. Sarmiento, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-06-2001 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 04-2083-RTJ), August 7, 2006, 498 SCRA 6, 16.
[7] Judicial Audit and Physical Inventory of Confiscated Cash, Surety and Property Bonds at RTC, Tarlac, City, Brs. 63, 64 & 65, A.M. No. 04-7-358-RTC, July 22, 2005, 464 SCRA 21, 28.
