Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > September 2008 Resolutions > [A.M. OCA IPI No. 07-1948-MTJ : September 10, 2008] JUANITA C. TAN V. HON. ROSPLY RABARA-TRIA, PRESIDING JUDGE, METC, BR. 7, MANILA; HON. JESUSA PRADO MANIÑGAS, PRESIDING JUDGE; TEODORA R. BALBOA, BRANCH CLERK OF COURT; RAYMUNDO V. ROJAS, SHERIFF III, ALL OF METC, BR. 24, MANILA; AND HENRY P. FAVORITO, CLERK OF COURT, AND CESAR E. SALES, CASH CLERK III, BOTH OF OCC, METC, MANILA :

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 10 September 2008:

"A.M. OCA IPI No. 07-1948-MTJ (Juanita C. Tan v. Hon. Rosply Rabara-Tria, Presiding Judge, MeTC, Br. 7, Manila; Hon. Jesusa Prado Mani�gas, Presiding Judge; Teodora R. Balboa, Branch Clerk of Court; Raymundo V. Rojas, Sheriff III, all of MeTC, Br. 24, Manila; and Henry P. Favorito, Clerk of Court, and Cesar E. Sales, Cash Clerk III, both of OCC, MeTC, Manila) - This resolves the complaint dated 10 December 2007 filled by Juanito C. Tan charging all respondents with denial of due process relative to Criminal Case No. 294106-20-CR and 304930-CR entitled "People of the Philippines v. Francisco Herrera @ Boy Yap" for violation of B.P. No. 22.

Herein complainant posted the cash bond in the amount of P282,000.00 in behalf of the accused in the aforementioned criminal cases. The accused was later found only civilly liable for the crime charged. The accused was later found only civilly liable for the crime charged. The private complainant in the criminal cases then applied for the issuance of a writ of execution. Respondent Judge Jesusa Mani�gas ordered the issuance of a writ of execution and the release of the cash bond in favor of the private complainant as partial satisfaction of accused's civil liability.

Upon learning of this development, herein complainant through accused's counsel filed a motion for consideration alleging that the cash bond should have been released only to him and that he was deprived of due process as he was not informed of the proceedings relative to the release of the cash bond. Judge Mani�gas directed the private prosecutor to comment thereon. After the pleadings have been filed by the parties, respondent Judge Mani�gas denied the motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.

Complainant then filed the instant administrative case claiming deprivation of his right to due process. He impleaded as respondents the court officials and personnel of MeTC Branch 24 who were involved in the release of the cash bond, averring that they should have informed him of the hearing for the release of the cash bond as they allegedly knew him because he has pending cases in the said branch.

Respondents Judge Mani�gas, Branch Clerk of Court Teodora Balboa, and Sheriff Raymundo Rojas filed a consolidated Comment.^[1] They debunked the charge against them as devoid of factual and legal bases. They remarked that complainant was not a party litigant in the subject criminal cases and therefore had no personality to ask for and receive court processes or to file any pleading in connection therewith. Yet, he was given an opportunity to be heard when both his counsel and the private prosecutor appeared. They averred that complainant was afforded the chance to argue extensively, both orally and in writing, the merits of his motion. Judge Mani�gas denied the motion only after both sides were heard and a judicious consideration of the issues at hand was made. They argued that the essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard and complainant was obviously accorded the same.

According to respondents, Section 14, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court provides that a cash bond may be deposited by the accused himself or by any person acting in his behalf. They argued that when complainant voluntarily deposited the cash bond for an in behalf of the accused, he is presumed to have known the purpose of the said cash bond and of the possibility that it may be applied to satisfy the civil aspect of the cases, if so adjudged. As private complainant was able to show legal grounds for the application of the cash bond to satisfy the money judgment in the subject cases, Judge Mani�gas ordered the release of the same. They further argued that complainant should have appealed from the said order instead of filing the instant suit.

The rest of the respondents, namely Executive Judge Roslyn M. Rabara-Trai, Clerk of Court Atty. Henry P. Favorito and Cash Clerk Cesar E. Sales, filed their respective comments denying the charge against them. They essentially argued that they each performed their respective ministerial duties relative to the approval and release of the cash bond in question after ascertaining that the supporting documents were complete and proper and pursuant to the order of Judge Mani�gas which clearly stated that the cash bond be released in favor of the private complainant as part of the satisfaction of the judgment on the civil liability of the accused in the criminal cases. Being a ministerial duty, they had no choice but to act as they did under pain of administrative sanction if they did otherwise.

In his Report,^[2] Court Administrator recommend that the complaint be dismissed for lack of merit. he found, to wit:

Based on the records, complainant through his counsel, filed a Motion to Reconsider the Order [d]ated July 26. 2007 praying the cash bail be returned to him. The motion was heard in court and the parties' counsels engaged in oral argument in support of their respective positions. The private prosecutor was given ten (10) days to oppose the motion and the movant was granted the same period within which to file a reply. A rejoinder was even allowed if deemed necessary.

Clearly from the foregoing, complainant was afforded the opportunity to defend his claim to the cash bail, and was hence accorded due process.

x x x x

As regard (sic) the release of the cash bond to private complainant, Section 14, Rule 114 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure provides that a cash bond may be posted either by the accused or by a third person in his behalf. However, for the satisfaction of the fine and costs, the money deposited is regarded as the money of the accused as far as the Government is concerned. Hence, although it was herein complainant who posted the cash bail in behalf of the accused, he same may still be ordered forfeited by the court. Hence, respondent Judge Mani�gas action is deemed regular.

Respond ends Executive Judge Tria, Clerk of Court Favorito and Cash Clerk Sales' involvement in the subject incidents are purely ministerial in nature. They performed their duties after ascertaining the regularity and completeness of the required documents and have thus carried our their functions regularly.

Likewise, respondents Branch Clerk of Court Balboa and Sheriff Rojas are under no obligation to personally caution complainant on the release of the cash bond lest they be accused of partiality. It was also ministerial on the part of respondent Balboa to issue the writ of execution after having been ordered by the court to do so^[3]

We find the recommendation of the Court Administrator to be in accordance with law and the facts of the case. We find nothing irregular in respondents' performance of their respective duties. On the other hand, it is evident that the instant complaint stemmed from the adverse resolution of complainant's motion for reconsideration. His remedy therefore is to elevate the assailed order to the higher court for review and correction as the filing of an administrative complaint against a judge is neither the appropriate nor substitute remedy to question the propriety or impropriety of his decision. As a matter of public policy, the acts of a judge in his official capacity are not subject to disciplinary action even though such acts may be erroneous, provided he acts in good faith and without malice, as in this case.^[4]

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the complaint is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Rollo, pp. 55-62.

^[2] Id. at 103-109.

^[3] Id. at 108-109.

^[4] Valdez, Jr. v. Judge Gabales, A.M. RTJ-05-1956, 20 September 2005; Flores v. Justice Adefuin-De la Cruz, et al., A.M. No. CA-04-39. 5 October 2004.