ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[A.M. No. RTJ-01-1628.December 12, 2001]

SERRANO vs. JUDGE NABONG JR.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated DEC 12 2001.

A.M. No. RTJ-0l-1628(Manolito R. Serrano vs. Judge Juan C. Nabong, Jr.)

On May 20, 1999, the Office of the Ombudsman referred to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), for appropriate action, the complete records of the case entitled Manolito Serrano vs. Hon. Juan C. Nabong, Jr., docketed as OMB-0-99-0549.

In his affidavit-complaint, Mr. Manolito Serrano charged respondent Judge Juan C. Nabong, Jr., Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 32 of Manila, with partiality and violating Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), specifically Section 3 (e) and (f) thereof, in connection with Criminal Case No. 96-148945 for Falsification of Official Document which was then pending before him. 1 Entitled People of the Philippines vs. Puzon et al.Respondent judge's alleged bias for the accused in said criminal case is evidenced by his Orders, dated October 9, 1996 and January 19, 1998, which, according to complainant, were intended solely to delay the hearing of the case.

In the Order of October 9, 1996, respondent judge referred the case "to the Head of the Barangay Bureau, Director Bernardo Halili, for the parties to sit and talk for a possible settlement between them as they reside in the same barangay." 2 Rollo, p. 26.Thereafter, in his Order of January 19, 1998, respondent judge directed the barangay bureau of the City of Manila to refer the case "to the Manila City Council for appropriate action and thereafter, forward to this Court the results of their findings and action on this case filed by Manolito Serrano against Josephine Puzon, Anita Nadora, Yolanda Canoy and Noel Bayabao all of Barangay 566, Zone 15, District IV, Manila." 3 Id., p. 27.The latter Order indefinitely suspended the pre-trial "until the resolution of this referral is released and forwarded to this Court by the Manila City Council." 4 Id.

Complainant alleged that respondent judge issued these orders notwithstanding the fact that the Manila City Council and the Liga ng mga Barangay had no jurisdiction over the criminal case.

For his part, respondent judge denied the charges against him. He maintained that the referral of the case to the barangay bureau was in accordance with the Local Government Code as the accused are former barangay chairwoman and kagawads and the complaint was filed by a resident of their barangay. To disprove complainant's charge that he was acting in cahoots with the accused, respondent judge voluntarily inhibited himself from further hearing the subject criminal case. The Order, dated April 29, 1998 of respondent judge reads:

Accused are former Barangay Chairwoman and Kagawads. The complaint was filed by a resident of the barangay.

This Court, in accord with the provision of the Local Government Code requiring the parties to submit to the Barangay Conciliation, Process, deemed it proper to refer the case before the Liga ng mga Barangay, Manila City Council, because all the accused are then incumbent barangay officials.

However, due to the previously held barangay election, there was a change in the set of officers in the Liga ng mga Barangay with the current chairman, Natalio F. Beltran III requesting the Court to require the private complainant to submit a reconstituted. copy of the case, for they cannot seem to locate the folder of the accused.

All of these conciliatory efforts was in naught because of the serious doubts entertained by complainant as to this Court's impartiality and cold neutrality.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, as to appease the supposed ill-conceived notion of private complainant, Mr. Manolito Serrano that this Court and the accused are in cahoots (sabwatan) with each other, which is a bitter, brazen, and false allegation, the Court voluntarily INHIBITS itself from further hearing this case.

Let the entire records be sent to the Office of the Clerk of Court for the re-raffle to another branch of this Court.

SO ORDERED. 5 Id., p. 89.

After the preliminary investigation, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila, through Assistant City Prosecutor Renato F. Gonzaga, recommended to the Ombudsman the dismissal of the charges as it found that there was no probable cause against respondent judge for violation of Section 3 (e) and (f) of RA. No. 3019. 6 Resolution, dated December 15, 1998, Rollo, pp. 12-14.

The Ombudsman, upon recommendation of the Graft Investigation Officer II who reviewed the City Prosecutor's resolution, dismissed the criminal charge against respondent judge but referred the complete records of the case to the OCA for the determination of his administrative liability. 7 Rollo, p. 157.

In compliance with the directive of the Court Administrator, respondent judge filed his Comment on the letter-complaint. He averred that the referrals of the criminal case to the barangay bureau and to the Manila City Council were made in open court and without the objection of complainant and the accused. According to respondent judge, he believed in good faith that these referrals were not only justified but mandated by law as well. He justified these referrals by stating that having been City Administrator of Manila from 1986-1989, he knows that "the Barangay Bureau is one of the effective bureaus in the City to resolve, to recommend solutions and to take action on barangay disputes or cases." 8 Id., p. 171.

In its Memorandum to the Court, dated March 5, 2001, the OCA, through Deputy Court Administrator Jose Perez, made the following evaluation and recommendation:

We are indeed dismayed by the order of respondent Judge referring a criminal case for possible settlement between parties to an office, the Barangay Bureau, who has only administrative supervision, over Barangay officials. Such erroneous referral to an office without any competence or jurisdiction to take cognizance of a pending criminal case, is aggravated by the fact that the questioned order dated October 9, 1996 runs afoul of the basic legal principle that a criminal case cannot be subject of a settlement (Bue vs. Judge Base, Jr. A.M. No. MTJ-00-1244, July 3, 2000).

Though the questioned orders were issued in open court without any objection from the parties including herein complainant himself, we cannot countenance the very patent error of respondent judge of referring the case to the Barangay Bureau, which has contributed to the delay in the disposition of the criminal case.

The Court has many times ruled that not every error or mistake committed by a judge may be subject of disciplinary action. Respondent Judge claims good faith in his referral to the Barangay Bureau. However, such error is very patent and respondent should be sanctioned for it. His good faith may mitigate his liability but it cannot completely justify his ignorance of the law that resulted in the delay in the proceedings. Judges are the visible representation of the law, thus it is essential that they live up to the high standards demanded by the Code of Judicial Conduct.

As to the charges of partiality and violation of RA 3019 Sec. 3 (e) there is no sufficient evidence to hold him administratively liable.

Respondent judge has been in the government service since 1983 and will compulsorily retire on June 8, 2007. Verification of his 201 file reveals that he has not been previously sanctioned administratively. 9 Id., pp. 193-194.

The OCA then recommended that:

Judge Juan C. Nabong be found liable with [sic] gross ignorance of the law and FINED in the amount of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00) with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar transgressions would be dealt with more severely. 10 Id.

On April 2, 2001, the Court resolved to docket the case as a regular administrative case and required the parties to manifest whether they are submitting it for resolution on the basis of the pleadings already filed. The request of respondent judge that he be allowed to file a comment before submission of the case for resolution was granted by the Court. On the other hand, complainant's failure to file his manifestation was considered by the Court as his willingness to forthwith submit the case for resolution.

In his Comment, dated May 29, 2001, respondent judge insisted that he committed no error in referring the criminal case to the barangay bureau and City Council of Manila. He reiterated that the assailed orders were issued with the conformity of complainant and the accused in the case. He likewise informed the Court that all the accused had been acquitted of the charge by the trial court which heard the case after respondent judge inhibited himself therefrom.

The findings of the OCA are, in part, well taken. Respondent judge, indeed, erred when he referred for amicable settlement the subject criminal case to offices or agencies of the local government which had no jurisdiction to take cognizance thereof.

Respondent judge preliminarily referred the subject criminal case to the barangay bureau and subsequently to the Manila city council. He argued that these referrals were warranted by the fact that the accused therein were barangay officers and the complainant was a resident of said barangay.

Under the Local Government Code (Republic Act No. 7160), particularly Section 408 thereof, it is the lupong tagapamayapa of each barangay that has the authority to bring together parties residing in the same city or municipality for amicable settlement of certain disputes. Thus, respondent judge's referral of the subject criminal case to a local government office other than the lupon was erroneous.

Moreover, had respondent judge been more circumspect in determining the applicable law, he would have known that the crime for which the accused were charged, i.e., falsification of official document, may not be subject of an amicable settlement under the same Section 408 of the Local Government Code which reads:

SEC. 408. Subject Matter for Amicable Settlement; Exception Thereto. - The lupon of each barangay shall have authority to bring together the parties actually residing in the same city or municipality for amicable settlement of all disputes except:

(a) Where one party is the government, or any subdivision or instrumentality thereof;

(b) Where one party is a public officer or employee, and the dispute relates to the performance of his official functions;

(c) Offenses punishable by imprisonment exceeding one (1) year or a fine exceeding Five thousand pesos (P5,000.00);

(d) Where the dispute involves real properties located in different cities or municipalities unless the parties thereto agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by an appropriate lupon;

(e) Disputes involving parties who actually reside in barangays of different cities or municipalities, except where such barangay units adjoin each other and the parties thereto agree to submit their differences to amicable settlement by an appropriate lupon;

(g) Such other classes of disputes which the President may determine in the interest of justice or upon the recommendation of the Secretary of Justice.

The court in which non-criminal cases not falling within the authority of .the lupon under this Code are filed may, at any time before trial, motu proprio refer the case to the lupon concerned for amicable settlement.

As opined by the Graft Investigation Officer II of the Office of the Ombudsman, respondent judge had no legal basis for issuing the assailed orders:

In the light of the above provisions of the Local Government Code of 1991, the criminal case for falsification of public document allegedly committed by the accused Barangay officials are clearly not within the authority of the Barangay Court for the following obvious reasons:

1. In the case of falsification of official document (falsified payroll) the real victim is the government which may have lost money through ghost payment made by the accused;

2. The barangay officials are definitely public officers as contemplated by law and the alleged violation committed by them relates to the performance of their official functions;

3. Falsification of official document under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code has a penalty of prison mayor (six years and one day to twelve years) and a fine not to exceed 5,000 pesos.

The justifications made by the respondent Judge that the referral of the subject falsification case to the Barangay Bureau for amicable settlement, therefore, has no legal basis. 11 Id., p. 155.

However, as this Court has ruled, not all errors of a judge can be the subject of disciplinary action, but only those tainted by fraud, dishonesty, corruption or malice. 12 Tolentino vs. Camano, Jr., 322 SCRA 559 (2000).None has been shown in this case. Rather, what appears on record is that respondent judge believed in good faith that the referral of the subject criminal case was warranted under the circumstances. Accordingly, an admonition with a stern warning that a repetition of similar acts will be dealt with more severely would suffice in this case.

WHEREFORE, respondent judge is hereby ADMONISHED with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

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