[ A.M No. MTJ-94-923. January 18, 2000]

JABAO vs. JUDGE BONILLA

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 18 2000.

A.M. No. MTJ-94-923 (Jabao vs. Judge Bonilla.)

Before us are 1) a motion filed by the respondent judge to defer enforcement of the decision rendered by this Court dated September 10, 1999 and 2) a motion for reconsideration from the said decision. The dispositive portion of the said decision states:

"Wherefore, respondent Judge Melchor Bonilla is hereby dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and leave credits with prejudice to re-employment in any government agency or instrumentality. Immediately upon service on him of this decision, he is deemed to have vacated his office and his authority to act as a judge is considered automatically terminated."

Respondents judge pleads that the immediate enforcement of the said decision will unduly prejudice his right to be heard on the motion for reconsideration which is allegedly based on meritorious grounds.

Both in the motion for reconsideration and in the Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration respondent argues that the first charge against him for knowingly utilizing forged affidavits of cohabitation to be able to solemnize marriages without need of a marriage license is baseless and that the findings of the investigating judge and of the Court Administrator are erroneous. Judge Bonilla claims that it is the duty of the Branch Clerk of Court, in this case, Jabao who is the complainant herein, to prepare the documents of the contracting parties to the marriage before respondent signs them and he was not in a position to know whether the said documents were forged. Jabao's testimony that she saw the respondents affix the signatures of the named notary public cannot be believed considering her failure to report to the proper authorities the alleged unlawful acts within a reasonable time. The same is true as regards his unauthorized acts of notarizing public documents. Respondent alleges that herein complainant, instead of warning the respondent about the Supreme Court Circular requiring judges who act as notaries public to certify that there are no other notary public on the municipality, prodded the respondent to notarize the questioned documents without the required certification. The respondent's alleged failure to account for the notarial fees collected is likewise imputable to complainant Jabao who did not turn over the said amounts to this Court. The second charge for falsely stating in his decisions that the accused was assisted by counsel in pleading "guilty" to violations of fishing laws is admitted by the respondent. He appeals however, to the sense of equity of this court because he committed the said offense for humanitarian reasons and upon request of the accused themselves. Moreover, the constitutional right of the accused to counsel was not violated even if he was not personally assisted by counsel during arraignment because he has been previously advised by counsel to plead "guilty" and pay the fine instead of going to jail. Movant claims that the procedural shortcut adopted by the respondent did not hamper the administration of justice but facilitated it. From the above considerations, the respondent pleads that the penalty imposed by this Court is harsh considering that the acts committed were done in good faith.

Both motions are denied.

The respondent judge cannot pass the blame to his Branch Clerk for the irregularities committed in his sala because as the Presiding Judge he has supervision and control over the Branch Clerk and he is directly responsible for the proper discharge of his official functions. 1 Rule 3.09, Canon 3, Code of Judicial Ethics; Abarquez vs. Rebosura, 285 SCRA 109. A judge cannot hide behind the alleged inefficiency or irregularities committed by his staff as it is his duty to closely supervise them. 2 Lagatic vs. Pe�as, Jr. 276 SCRA 46; Fernandez vs. Imbing, 260 SCRA 586.2 The respondent judge cannot plead that he never saw the forged affidavits of cohabitation when he solemnized the marriage when the presentation of an affidavit of cohabitation, which takes the place of a marriage license, is required prior to the solemnization of the marriage. It is his duty as the solemnizing officer to ascertain if all the requisites for marriage have been complied with by the contracting parties. As regards the false statements the respondent made in the decisions he rendered that the accused were assisted by counsel when in fact they were not, this Court is not persuaded by his desperate attempt to downplay the gravity of the offense. As we stated in our decision, the procedural shortcuts the respondent systematically adopted which undermined the constitutional right of the accused to counsel cannot be condoned. We find no compelling reason to disturb our previous findings.

The motion to suspend enforcement of the decision is likewise denied in view of the seriousness of the misdeeds committed by the respondent judge in the discharge of his judicial functions, and in view of the denial of the instant motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.

WHEREFORE, the motion to suspend enforcement of the decision pending resolution of the motion for reconsideration and the motion for reconsideration are both denied for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA PUNO

Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Asst. Clerk of Court


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com