April 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > April 2009 Resolutions >
[A.M. No. RTJ-08-2114 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-2797-RTJ) : April 13, 2009] GLORIA P. DE GUZMAN, COMPLAINANT VS. JUDGE HECTOR B. SALISE, CLERK III ELSA L. LAMPAD AND UTILITY WORKER I ANTHONY EDWARD P. SALAZAR, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 7, BAYUGAN, AGUSAN DEL SUR, RESPONDENT. :
[A.M. No. RTJ-08-2114 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-2797-RTJ) : April 13, 2009]
GLORIA P. DE GUZMAN, COMPLAINANT VS. JUDGE HECTOR B. SALISE, CLERK III ELSA L. LAMPAD AND UTILITY WORKER I ANTHONY EDWARD P. SALAZAR, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 7, BAYUGAN, AGUSAN DEL SUR, RESPONDENT.
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 13 April 2009:
A.M. No. RTJ-08-2114 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-2797-RTJ) -GLORIA P. DE GUZMAN, complainant versus JUDGE HECTOR B. SALISE, Clerk III ELSA L. LAMPAD and Utility Worker I ANTHONY EDWARD P. SALAZAR, Regional Trial Court, Branch 7, Bayugan, Agusan Del Sur, respondent.
Before the Court is a letter-complaint[1] of Mrs. Gloria P. de Guzman accusing respondents of gross negligence and gross ignorance of the law in connection with the issuance of a warrant of arrest against her.
The facts, culled from the records, are as follows:
Complainant Mrs. de Guzman is the accused in Criminal Case No. 2655[2] filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 7, Bayugan, Agusan del Sur. Upon the instruction of respondent Elsa L. Lampad, the clerk-in-charge of criminal cases, respondent Anthony Edward P. Salazar prepared a warrant of arrest against Mrs. de Guzman. Salazar reminded Lampad to submit the warrant of arrest to the Clerk of Court for review, in accordance with the office procedure. For some unexplained reason, Lampad put her initial on the warrant of arrest.[3] The folder of Criminal Case No. 2655 was then "included in the records of archived cases [with orders] for signature [by respondent Judge Hector B. Salise]."[4] Believing that Lampad's initial was the initial of the Clerk of Court, Judge Salise signed[5] the warrant of arrest[6] dated June 15, 2007.
In the morning of June 28, 2007, Mrs. de Guzman was arrested while teaching at Bayugan National Comprehensive High School. She was brought to Bayugan City Police Station where her photographs were taken. Upon the suggestion of the arresting officer, they proceeded to the RTC.[7] There, the arresting officer gave the warrant of arrest to Lampad who immediately noticed the notation thereon that bail bond is not required. She apologized to Mrs. de Guzman for the inconvenience, and informed Judge Salise of the matter.[8]
In an Order[9] dated July 6, 2007, Judge Salise recalled the warrant of arrest. He noted that per the Information filed, bail is not required since the accused is charged of slight physical injuries under the Revised Penal Code, not for violation of the Child Abuse Act of 1992. He also noted the inadvertence of his staff in preparing the warrant of arrest and apologized for his oversight in signing it.
In its evaluation,[10] the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found Judge Salise guilty of gross ignorance of the law and recommended that he be fined P20,000. According to the OCA, Judge Salise merely relies on the initial of the Clerk of Court in the issuance of a warrant of arrest, and he signed the warrant of arrest against Mrs. de Guzman without determining probable cause. As regards Lampad and Salazar, the OCA recommended the dismissal of the complaints against them, with warning to Lampad to be more circumspect in the performance of her duties. Although full responsibility rests with Judge Salise for issuing the warrant of arrest, Lampad failed to explain why she put her initial thereon. She also violated office procedure by not submitting the warrant of arrest to the Clerk of Court. Regarding Salazar, the OCA stated that he merely obeyed a valid order from his superior (Lampad).
After a full review of the case, we adopt as our own the findings of the OCA. We find Judge Salise guilty of gross ignorance of the law, and adopt the recommendation of the OCA to dismiss the charges against Lampad and Salazar.
Nothing in the records would indicate that Judge Salise determined the existence of probable cause before he issued the warrant of arrest against Mrs. de Guzman. We did not find any notation or written instruction by Judge Salise to his staff to prepare the warrant of arrest. Such instruction would have been a basis for us to presume that he made a prior determination of probable cause. Judge Salise did not even claim that he found probable cause and gave oral instructions to his staff to prepare a warrant of arrest. Rather, Salazar prepared the warrant of arrest upon the instruction of Lampad. With these facts, we agree with the OCA that Judge Salise made no determination of probable cause before he signed the warrant of arrest. Such conclusion is validated by Judge Salise's own admission that he signed the warrant of arrest by mere oversight.
Thus, we affirm the OCA that Judge Salise is guilty of gross ignorance of the law, defined as lack of conversance with legal principles sufficiently basic and elementary.[11] The Constitution itself states that no warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge.[12] The Rules of Court similarly require that within ten days from the filing of the Information, the RTC Judge shall personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence. If the Judge finds probable cause, he shall issue a warrant of arrest.[13] It is unfortunate that Judge Salise appears to be unaware of these very basic rules, in the way he issued the wan-ant of arrest against Mrs. de Guzman.
The OCA has basis for its finding that Judge Salise merely relies on the initial of the Clerk of Court in the issuance of a warrant of arrest. Such finding is merely based on the statement of Judge Salise that he signed the warrant of arrest believing that the initial thereon was the initial of the Clerk of Court. Judge Salise's statement creates an impression on how he issues a warrant of arrest.
While as a matter of policy, the acts of a judge in his official capacity are not subject to disciplinary action in the absence of fraud, dishonesty and corruption,[14] failure to observe the basic laws and rules is not excusable and renders the judge susceptible to administrative sanction for gross ignorance of the law,[15] as in this case.
The recommended fine of P20,000 is proper. In Enriquez v. Caminade,[16] the Court noted that gross ignorance of the law is a serious charge,[17] but it has been penalized with a wide range of fines from P5,000 to P40,000.[18] In Enriquez, the Court imposed a fine of P20,000. In Balayon, Jr. v. Dinopol,[19] the Court also imposed a fine of P20,000 for a finding of gross ignorance of the law brought about by respondent's failure to observe the requirements in issuing a search warrant.
On the charge of gross negligence, the OCA has not made an express finding against Judge Salise. The OCA noted, however, that Judge Salise mentioned the inadvertence of his staff who prepared the warrant of arrest. We agree with the OCA that Judge Salise should be "reminded that the issuance of a warrant of arrest" is his duty and that "he cannot take refuge behind the inefficiency or mismanagement by the court personnel." Proper and efficient court management is as much his responsibility, as he is the one directly responsible for the proper discharge of his official functions.[20] Indeed, full responsibility rests with Judge Salise as the Constitution and the Rules of Court require him to personally determine probable cause before issuing a warrant of arrest. His violation of the rule cannot be the fault of Lampad and Salazar. Thus, as recommended by the OCA, we dismiss the charges against Lampad and Salazar. However, the warning to Lampad which was recommended by the OCA, must be deleted. The procedure is wrong even if it is the Clerk of Court who prepares and initials a warrant of arrest before Judge Salise could determine probable cause. Judge Salise has to correct this procedure.
WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Hector B. Salise of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 7, Bayugan, Agusan del Sur, is hereby FINED P20,000 for gross ignorance of the law, payable within ten days from notice. He is STERNLY WARNED that repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely.
The complaints against respondents Elsa L. Lampad and Anthony Edward P. Salazar are DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Chairperson, Honorable Conchita Carpio Morales, Dante O. Tinga, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. and Arturo D. Brion, Members, Second Division, this 13th day of April, 2009.
A.M. No. RTJ-08-2114 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-2797-RTJ) -GLORIA P. DE GUZMAN, complainant versus JUDGE HECTOR B. SALISE, Clerk III ELSA L. LAMPAD and Utility Worker I ANTHONY EDWARD P. SALAZAR, Regional Trial Court, Branch 7, Bayugan, Agusan Del Sur, respondent.
Before the Court is a letter-complaint[1] of Mrs. Gloria P. de Guzman accusing respondents of gross negligence and gross ignorance of the law in connection with the issuance of a warrant of arrest against her.
The facts, culled from the records, are as follows:
Complainant Mrs. de Guzman is the accused in Criminal Case No. 2655[2] filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 7, Bayugan, Agusan del Sur. Upon the instruction of respondent Elsa L. Lampad, the clerk-in-charge of criminal cases, respondent Anthony Edward P. Salazar prepared a warrant of arrest against Mrs. de Guzman. Salazar reminded Lampad to submit the warrant of arrest to the Clerk of Court for review, in accordance with the office procedure. For some unexplained reason, Lampad put her initial on the warrant of arrest.[3] The folder of Criminal Case No. 2655 was then "included in the records of archived cases [with orders] for signature [by respondent Judge Hector B. Salise]."[4] Believing that Lampad's initial was the initial of the Clerk of Court, Judge Salise signed[5] the warrant of arrest[6] dated June 15, 2007.
In the morning of June 28, 2007, Mrs. de Guzman was arrested while teaching at Bayugan National Comprehensive High School. She was brought to Bayugan City Police Station where her photographs were taken. Upon the suggestion of the arresting officer, they proceeded to the RTC.[7] There, the arresting officer gave the warrant of arrest to Lampad who immediately noticed the notation thereon that bail bond is not required. She apologized to Mrs. de Guzman for the inconvenience, and informed Judge Salise of the matter.[8]
In an Order[9] dated July 6, 2007, Judge Salise recalled the warrant of arrest. He noted that per the Information filed, bail is not required since the accused is charged of slight physical injuries under the Revised Penal Code, not for violation of the Child Abuse Act of 1992. He also noted the inadvertence of his staff in preparing the warrant of arrest and apologized for his oversight in signing it.
In its evaluation,[10] the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found Judge Salise guilty of gross ignorance of the law and recommended that he be fined P20,000. According to the OCA, Judge Salise merely relies on the initial of the Clerk of Court in the issuance of a warrant of arrest, and he signed the warrant of arrest against Mrs. de Guzman without determining probable cause. As regards Lampad and Salazar, the OCA recommended the dismissal of the complaints against them, with warning to Lampad to be more circumspect in the performance of her duties. Although full responsibility rests with Judge Salise for issuing the warrant of arrest, Lampad failed to explain why she put her initial thereon. She also violated office procedure by not submitting the warrant of arrest to the Clerk of Court. Regarding Salazar, the OCA stated that he merely obeyed a valid order from his superior (Lampad).
After a full review of the case, we adopt as our own the findings of the OCA. We find Judge Salise guilty of gross ignorance of the law, and adopt the recommendation of the OCA to dismiss the charges against Lampad and Salazar.
Nothing in the records would indicate that Judge Salise determined the existence of probable cause before he issued the warrant of arrest against Mrs. de Guzman. We did not find any notation or written instruction by Judge Salise to his staff to prepare the warrant of arrest. Such instruction would have been a basis for us to presume that he made a prior determination of probable cause. Judge Salise did not even claim that he found probable cause and gave oral instructions to his staff to prepare a warrant of arrest. Rather, Salazar prepared the warrant of arrest upon the instruction of Lampad. With these facts, we agree with the OCA that Judge Salise made no determination of probable cause before he signed the warrant of arrest. Such conclusion is validated by Judge Salise's own admission that he signed the warrant of arrest by mere oversight.
Thus, we affirm the OCA that Judge Salise is guilty of gross ignorance of the law, defined as lack of conversance with legal principles sufficiently basic and elementary.[11] The Constitution itself states that no warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge.[12] The Rules of Court similarly require that within ten days from the filing of the Information, the RTC Judge shall personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence. If the Judge finds probable cause, he shall issue a warrant of arrest.[13] It is unfortunate that Judge Salise appears to be unaware of these very basic rules, in the way he issued the wan-ant of arrest against Mrs. de Guzman.
The OCA has basis for its finding that Judge Salise merely relies on the initial of the Clerk of Court in the issuance of a warrant of arrest. Such finding is merely based on the statement of Judge Salise that he signed the warrant of arrest believing that the initial thereon was the initial of the Clerk of Court. Judge Salise's statement creates an impression on how he issues a warrant of arrest.
While as a matter of policy, the acts of a judge in his official capacity are not subject to disciplinary action in the absence of fraud, dishonesty and corruption,[14] failure to observe the basic laws and rules is not excusable and renders the judge susceptible to administrative sanction for gross ignorance of the law,[15] as in this case.
The recommended fine of P20,000 is proper. In Enriquez v. Caminade,[16] the Court noted that gross ignorance of the law is a serious charge,[17] but it has been penalized with a wide range of fines from P5,000 to P40,000.[18] In Enriquez, the Court imposed a fine of P20,000. In Balayon, Jr. v. Dinopol,[19] the Court also imposed a fine of P20,000 for a finding of gross ignorance of the law brought about by respondent's failure to observe the requirements in issuing a search warrant.
On the charge of gross negligence, the OCA has not made an express finding against Judge Salise. The OCA noted, however, that Judge Salise mentioned the inadvertence of his staff who prepared the warrant of arrest. We agree with the OCA that Judge Salise should be "reminded that the issuance of a warrant of arrest" is his duty and that "he cannot take refuge behind the inefficiency or mismanagement by the court personnel." Proper and efficient court management is as much his responsibility, as he is the one directly responsible for the proper discharge of his official functions.[20] Indeed, full responsibility rests with Judge Salise as the Constitution and the Rules of Court require him to personally determine probable cause before issuing a warrant of arrest. His violation of the rule cannot be the fault of Lampad and Salazar. Thus, as recommended by the OCA, we dismiss the charges against Lampad and Salazar. However, the warning to Lampad which was recommended by the OCA, must be deleted. The procedure is wrong even if it is the Clerk of Court who prepares and initials a warrant of arrest before Judge Salise could determine probable cause. Judge Salise has to correct this procedure.
WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Hector B. Salise of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 7, Bayugan, Agusan del Sur, is hereby FINED P20,000 for gross ignorance of the law, payable within ten days from notice. He is STERNLY WARNED that repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely.
The complaints against respondents Elsa L. Lampad and Anthony Edward P. Salazar are DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Chairperson, Honorable Conchita Carpio Morales, Dante O. Tinga, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. and Arturo D. Brion, Members, Second Division, this 13th day of April, 2009.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Court of Court
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Court of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 101-103.
[2] Id. at 66 (People of the Philippines v. Gloria Pamugas de Guzman).
[3] Id. at 9.
[4] Id. at 52.
[5] Id. at 64.
[6] Id. at 24.
[7] Id. at 101-102.
[8] Id. at 40.
[9] Id. at 68.
[10] Id. at 1-4.
[11] Enriquez v. Caminade, A.M. No. RTJ-05-1966, March 21, 2006, 485 SCRA 98, 102.
[12] Article III, Section 2.
[13] Rule 112, Sec. 6.
[14] Sarmiento v. Leonardo, A.M. No. MTJ-06-1644, July 31, 2006, 497 SCRA 139, 145; Maylas, Jr. v. Sese, AM. No. RTJ-06-2012, August 4, 2006, 497 SCRA 602, 605.
[15] Landayan v. Quilantang, A.M. No. MTJ-06-1632, May 4, 2006, 489 SCRA 360, 367-368.
[16] Supra.
[17] RULES OF COURT, Rule 140, Sec. 3(9).
[18] Id., SEC. 10. Sanctions.-A. If the respondent is found culpable of a serious
charge, any of the following sanctions may be imposed:
1. Dismissal from the service with forfeiture of benefits (except accrued leaves) and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office including a government-owned or controlled corporation;
2. Suspension for three (3) months without salary and benefits; or
3. A fine of not less than P20,000.00 but not more than P40,000.00.
[19] A.M. No. RTJ-06-1969, June 15, 2006, 490 SCRA 547.
[20] Rollo, p. 2 citing Agcaoili v. Ramos, A.M. No. MTJ-92-6-251, February 7, 1994, 229 SCRA 705, 710. See also Office of the Court Administrator v. Legaspi, A.M. No. RTJ-05-1893, March 14, 2006, 484 SCRA 584, 607.
