ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[A.M. No. RTJ-99-1471. December 5, 2000]
CLERK OF COURT MARILOU M. GAMBOA vs. JUDGE PHILBERT ITURRALDE
EN BANC
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a reso!ution of this Court dated DEC 5 2000.
A.M. No. RTJ-99-1471 (Clerk of Court Marilou M. Gamboa, RTC-OCC, Angeles City vs. Judge Philbert I Iturralde, RTC, Branch 58, Angeles City.)
This administrative case stems from two letters dated January 6, 1999 and March 4, 1999, filed by Atty. Marilou M. Gamboa, Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court, Angeles City, with the Office of the Court of Administrator. Both letters asked for an opinion on whether or not she should heed the directive for her to release certain funds deposited in her office in connection with two election protest cases pending in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 58, Angeles City, then presided over by respondent Judge Philbert I. Iturralde.
Aforesaid election protest cases were filed on June 18, 1998 by defeated mayoralty and vice-mayoralty candidates Anthony Dee and Reynaldo Candelaria against incumbent Mayor Marino Morales and Vice-Mayor Prospero Lagman. These cases were docketed as EPC No. 98-131 and EPC No. 98-132, respectively, and were assigned to the sala of respondent judge.
In a Joint Order dated December 22, 1998, respondent judge granted the revision of contested ballots and directed, among others, that an amount equivalent to P 1,000.00 per ballot box be deposited by each of the protestants to cover necessary expenses of the revision committees. 1 Rollo, pp. 61-62.
On December 28, 1998, the protestants deposited with the Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Angeles City, the amount of P330,000.00 each, or an aggregate sum of P660,000.00, in compliance with the Joint Order, dated December 22, 1998.
In a subsequent Joint Order, dated December 29, 1999, respondent judge acknowledged the deposits made by both protestants and directed the Clerk of Court Atty. Gamboa, to release the full amount deposited to the Branch Clerk of Court of Branch 58 as the actual revision of the assailed ballots was slated to commence on January 11, 1999. 2 Id., at 63.
Not certain of what to do with the funds in her custody, Atty. Gamboa sent a letter to the Office of the Court Administrator, asking for an opinion on the matter. She wrote, thus:
Considering the amount involved and that this is just the first time that the undersigned has encountered such a. situation, the undersigned is quite at a loss as to whether or not to release the total amount of SIX HUNDRED SIXTY THOUSAND (P660,000.00) PESOS to the said Branch Clerk of Court. 3 Id ., at 55.
On January 7, 1999, as the scheduled date for revision of ballots was then forthcoming, respondent judge issued an order directing the Office of the Clerk of Court to withdraw at least the amount of P50,000.00 from the deposits made by the protestants to defray the expenses that may be incurred therein, and to entrust the same to the Branch Clerk of Court. 4 Id., at 64 .
Thereafter, protestant Reynaldo Candelaria filed on January 8, 1999 an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Withdraw Deposit aimed at answering in full the expenses that will be incurred in the revision of ballots. 5 Id., at 65.Respondent judge granted said Ex-Parte Motion in an Order of even date. 6 Id. , at 68.
Considering that the deposit remained in the custody of Atty. Gamboa up to and until January 15, 1999, respondent judge issued successively, on said date, two orders directing that the full amount be immediately released to the protestants who were, in turn, required to deposit the same to the Branch Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Branch 58. Thus, by virtue of said orders, Atty. Gamboa, with the approval of the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Angeles City, released the amount to the protestants who, as per instruction, deposited it with the Branch Clerk of Court of Branch 58. 7 Id .,at 69 & 70.
On February 9, 1999, the Office of the Court Administrator sent a letter to respondent judge requiring him "x x x to comment on the letter of Atty. Gamboa relative to violation of Circular No. 50-95 in the issuance of the Orders of the Court, dated December 29, 1998 and January 9, 1999." Respondent judge replied thereto in a letter/explanation, dated March 3, 1999, portions of which are quoted hereunder, as follows:
x x x The protestants were ordered by this Court to deposit said amount to the Branch Clerk of Court of this Branch but unfortunately the protestants deposited the same with the Office of the Clerk of Court. Upon encountering many pre-requisites for the immediate release of certain amount needed to defray revisors allowance/compensation and other expenditures incurred in view of said revision in Quezon City, this Court was constrained to issue said orders subject matter of your letter.
With due respect, the nature of said account is different from that stated in the circular and as such serves a unique and different purpose which is to shoulder the revision expenditures. As wrongly perceived and interpreted by other party, it is the thinking of this court that said deposit does not fall within the concept of fiduciary deposits made in courts as meant in said circular which deposits may only be withdrawn by a party only upon termination of the case. It neither serve as a guaranty or bond to be made answerable to any party in case of damages or prejudice. Again, said deposits are made to defray expenses of revision payments of which are made to revisors per ballot box revised on a daily basis. Should the court not be able to pay revision expenses the intended revision would not have materialized as no revisors could be hired by the court. Nonetheless, to ensure safeguards and transparency on the expenses of said deposit, the Court required the same to be deposited with Land Bank Angeles City Branch in the account of the Court under Election Protest Cases No. 98-13 1 and 98-132. That proper receipts must support withdrawal thereof. Attached herewith are xerox copies of said bank account indicating therein the withdrawals, receipts of the amount withdrawn by Arty. Crisanta Valera, Chief of Board of Canvassers of SET and court appointed Head Revisor. To date withdrawals made was in the sum of about P 160,000.00 but the appreciation of ballots are still to be undertaken wherein expenses are likewise to be incurred.
With the foregoing, the undersigned in all honesty and good faith believe it did not violate said circular. The Court had acted in accordance with its conscience and on the circumstances prevailing and attendant on the merits of the case. The Court have to act with dispatch in view of the nature of the case, the tension it has built in the Municipality of Mabalacat and the period of time required for this case to be tried. 8 Id., at 73-74.
On March 4, 1999, Any. Gamboa wrote her second letter to the Office of the Court Administrator.
On March 16, 1999, respondent judge issued an order directing his Branch Clerk of Court to withdraw the deposits from the Land Bank of the Philippines and re-deposit the same back to the Office of the Clerk of Court. 9 Id., at 75 .
On March 19, 1999, respondent judge sent a letter to the Honorable Chief Justice of the Supreme Court requesting that the appreciation of the contested ballots be conducted before the Senate Electoral Tribunal. 10 Id., at 77.This request was noted by the Court in a Resolution, dated April 13, 1999. 11 Id., at 79.Later, the same request was referred to the Senate Electoral Tribunal for appropriate action.
In the meantime, on March 25, 1999, the Office of the Court Administrator consulted its Financial Management Office for an opinion as to whether funds deposited in court in election cases are considered fiduciary funds. Said office, thru Officer-in-Charge Antonina Soria submitted a Comment/Report, dated May 13, 1999, pertinent portions of which read as follows:
Deposits on the Fiduciary Fund includes deposits for cash bonds, rentals, deposits received by the court in consignation and all fiduciary collections. Amounts held in trust in courts are deposited in a Fiduciary Fund account. It is worthy to note that deposits made in an election protest are similar to deposit made to court in consignation. The undersigned begs to disagree with the allegation of Judge Iturralde that the nature of deposits in an election protest is different from deposit/account stated in Circular No. 50-95. Deposit in an election protest is still a fiduciary collection which should be deposited in the name of the court.
Further, the authorized collecting agent of the Court is the Clerk of Court in the Office of the Clerk of Court considering that he is the bonded officer of the court. Branch Clerk of Court is not an accountable and bonded officer, thus, cannot be entrusted with deposits and withdrawals of amount held in trust to the court. This matter was emphasized in Circular No. 50-95 which makes the 0CC-Clerk of Court and the Executive Judge as the only authorized signatories in the deposits and withdrawals of fiduciary collections.
The undersigned sees no exemption on the abovementioned cases filed so as to allow the Branch Clerk of Court to open a separate account to handle disbursements of expenses relative to Election Protest Cases Nos. 98-131 and 98-132. The expenses for the revision of ballots can still be defrayed with expediency as long as the requirements for the release thereof are complied with. This appears not a compelling reason to accept favorably the allegations and recommendations of Judge Iturralde. 12 Id., at 5-6.
On May 31, 1999, the Executive Committee of the Senate Electoral Tribunal issued an order granting the application of respondent judge to conduct the appreciation of contested ballots in the premises of said tribunal. 13 Id., at 92.This order was later confirmed by the Senate Electoral Tribunal in Resolution No. 99-25, dated June 10, 1999. 14 Id., at 80.
Subsequently, the Supreme Court en banc issued a Resolution, dated July 6, 1999, treating the letter of Arty. Gamboa, dated March 4, 1999 as an administrative complaint against respondent Judge Iturralde for violation of OCA Circular No. 50-95, dated October 11, 1995 (re: Guidelines in Making Deposits and Withdrawals of Court Fiduciary Funds), and directing respondent judge to inform the Court if he is willing to submit the matter for resolution based on the pleadings already submitted. 15 Id ., at 33.
In compliance with the above Resolution, dated July 6, 1999, respondent judge filed an Answer/Comment praying therein that a hearing en banc be conducted, and that the administrative complaint be dismissed. 16 Id., at 38.
The Court issued a Resolution, dated November 16, 1999 referring the administrative case to Associate Justice Eugenio S. Labitoria of the Court of Appeals for investigation, report and recommendation. 17 Id., at 86.
Thereafter, Justice Labitoria submitted his report, recommending therein that:
(1) respondent Judge he absolved of any administrative sanction;
(2) however, respondent Judge should be strongly reprimanded for issuing the questionable Orders dated December 29, 1998, January 7, 1999, January 8, 1999 and the two Orders dated January 15, 1999;
(3) he be further admonished to be more careful in his personal and judicial actuations to avoid the slightest suspicion and perception of misbehavior and corruption by the public;
(4) and finally, that his back salaries and other monetary benefits since the time he was suspended by the Honorable Supreme Court be given him unless he is further suspended for some other administrative cases. 18 Report of Justice Eugenio S. Labitoria, p. 11.
We are inclined to agree with the above recommendations. A judge may be disciplined for serious misconduct or inefficiency. 19 Galangi vs. Macli-ing, 81 SCRA 91(1978).The word "misconduct" implies wrongful intention and not mere error of judgment. 20 Raquiza vs. Castaneda, 81 SCRA 235 (1978).For serious misconduct to exist, the judicial act complained of should be corrupt or inspired by an intention to violate the law or a persistent disregard of well-known legal rules. 21 Secretary of Justice vs. Bullecer, 56 SCRA 24 (1974).In the case at bar, the investigating body has found that the issuance of respondent judge of the questioned orders were done in good faith and without intent to violate the law, but rather "geared for the purpose of ensuring the speedy and judicious termination" of the case. In fact, the Executive Committee of the Senate Electoral Tribunal even commended respondent judge for having completed the revision proceedings in both election protest cases "x x x in an efficient, orderly and speedy manner." 22 Report of Justice Labitoria, p. 7.
However, respondent judge should have been more circumspect in issuing said orders as he is presumed to know that it is only the Executive Judge and the Clerk of Court who are authorized to sign deposits and withdrawals of fiduciary or any other kind of fund pertaining to his court. A judge should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. 23 CANON OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT, CANON 2, RULE 2.01.He should avoid impropriety or even the appearance of impropriety in all his actuations. The act of directing that the amounts deposited by the litigants in a case pending in his sala be released to his Branch Clerk of Court, considering that the latter is neither an accountable or a bonded officer and thus, cannot be entrusted with deposits and withdrawals of amounts held in trust, is certainly not beyond suspicion.
Granting that respondent judge was unaware that he cannot entrust the deposit to his Branch Clerk of Court, he is nonetheless bound by the provisions of OCA Circular No. 50-95, which, in no uncertain terms, grants the mandate of handling fiduciary funds only to Executive Judges and Clerks of Court. Needless to state, respondent judge should keep himself abreast of the law. 24 Report of Justice Labitoria, p.8.
The above notwithstanding, the Court believes that there was no deliberate attempt by respondent to violate OCA Circular No. 50-95. 25 Id., at 10.As opined by Justice Labitoria, it would be unfair' to penalize respondent judge for perceiving the amounts deposited as falling out of the purview of fiduciary funds. We agree with his finding that since the only infraction that respondent judge committed was to order the release of the amounts to his Branch Clerk of Court, he should only be reprimanded with warning to be more prudent in the issuance of orders/directives. 26 Id.
Finally, it is worthy to note that while the protestants in both election cases were required to deposit the total amount of P660,000.00, the revision proceedings were terminated with total expenses of only P170,000.00, all of which had been accounted for. Apparently, the balance of P490,000.00 is still deposited with the Land Bank of the Philippines. 27 Rollo, pp. 125-151.
Four Justices of the Court opted to impose a more severe penalty; nevertheless, they submit to the ruling of the majority.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court hereby RESOLVES to impose the penalty of REPRIMAND upon respondent judge for issuing the questionable Orders, dated December 29, 1998; January 7, 1999; January 8, 1999; and, the two Orders, dated January 15, 1999, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely. His back salaries and other monetary benefits that have been withheld since the time he was suspended by the Court should now be paid to him unless he has already received the same and unless he is further suspended for some other administrative case.
Very truly yours,
LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court�
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Asst. Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
