ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[A.M. No. 04-2040-RTJ.� July 11, 2005]
AGURA vs. DAMES II
SECOND DIVISION
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 11 2005.
A.M. No. 04-2040-RTJ (Epifanio C. Agura, Sr. vs. Judge Sancho A. Dames II, Regional Trial Court, Branch 38, Daet, Camarines Norte.)
Considering the Report of the Office of the Court Administrator, to wit:
VERIFIED COMPLAINT dated 7 July 2004 of Epifanio C. Agura, Sr., charging Judge Sancho A. Dames, II, RTC Branch 38, Daet, Camarines Norte with Knowingly Rendering Unjust Judgment, Ignorance of the Law and Grave Abuse of Authority relative to Criminal Case No. 10607 entitled "People of the Philippines vs. Edmund Daza y Salen, et al." for Violation of Sec. 77 P.D. 705 (Forestry Code of the Philippines) as amended by Exec. Order No. 277 as renumbered as R.A. 7161.
Complainant is the bondsman who posted the property bond for release of the four (4) accused in the subject criminal case. He alleges that respondent in an order dated 6 March 2000 abused his authority when he ordered for the detention of the two accused present in court and cancellation of the property bond of Twenty Thousand Pesos (Php. 20,000.00) each filed by the four (4) accused for insufficiency as per recommendation of the Provincial Prosecutor that the bail be set at Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php. 50,000.00) for each of the accused. He further alleges that these were done without affording reasonable time for the four accused to increase their posted bail, in violation of Section 20, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court. The two accused who were detained were later on released upon posting a separate surety bond for fifty thousand pesos each.
Complainant contends that despite the cancellation of the said property bond respondent ordered for its confiscation and execution on 5 March 2003 and 19 November 2003 respectively. In the said 19 November 2003 order, the respondent held complainant liable for Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php. 50,000.00) for each of the two accused who did not file an increased bond.
COMMENT dated 15 July 2004 of respondent Judge Sancho A. Dames II denying the allegations on the complaint.
Respondent explains that under par. 3, Section 22, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, "in all instances, the cancellation of the bond shall be without prejudice to any liability on the bail." Hence, complainant remains liable under the bond for failure to produce in court the two other accused who did not file an increased bond.
Respondent likewise claims that there was merely a typographical error in the assailed 19 November 2003 order wherein complainant was held liable for fifty thousand pesos each instead of twenty thousand for the two accused who did not file an increased bond. He further avers that complainant should have first asked the trial court to rectify the said order.
He argues that the trial court has given the complainant bondsman leeway and a long period to produce the body of the accused but failed to do so. Therefore, complainant remains liable under the bond for failure to comply with his undertaking to produce the accused when required by the court.
COMMENT dated 2 August 2004 of the complainant. He avers that respondent in his letter-comment dated 15 July 2004 wanted to portray that he committed errors through negligence but this negligence should not be countenanced as Section 20, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court provides that in case bail is increased, reasonable period should be given to the four accused, rather than ordering the cancellation of their bail and their immediate arrest.
He further claims that in the case of the two accused who filed an increased surety bond, their previous property bond for twenty thousand pesos was deemed cancelled. Then by analogy the same twenty thousand property bond for each of the other two accused who did not file an increased bond should likewise be treated as cancelled, thereby, relieving him as bondsman from any further liability.
REACTION TO THE RESPONDENT'S COMMENT WITH PRAYER FOR INHIBITION dated 15 September 2004 of the complainant. He reiterated his claim that respondent erred when he ordered on 6 March 2001 for the cancellation of the property bond and arrest of the two accused present in court without affording them the opportunity to post an additional bond within a reasonable period as provided for by the Rules of Court.
Again, complainant put into issue that if the property bond was already cancelled by the trial court's order dated 6 March 2001 then why did the respondent forfeited (sic) and executed (sic) the same in an order dated 19 November 2003.
Complainant prays for the Court to inhibit respondent from further hearing the subject criminal case.
EVALUATION: A perusal of the records reveals that the instant complaint dwells into the issue of whether or not respondent erred in holding complainant liable under the bond.
An erroneous application of the rules by judges cannot be the sole basis for disciplining them. As the Court has ruled in the past, in order to discipline a judge, it must clearly be shown that the judgment or order is unjust as being contrary to law and that the judge rendered it with conscious and deliberate intent to do injustice (Re Climaco, 55 SCRA 107). Judges cannot be subjected to liability - civil, criminal or administrative - for any of their official acts, no matter how erroneous, so long as they act in good faith. It is only when they act fraudulently or corruptly, or with gross ignorance may be held criminally or administratively responsible (Valdez vs. Valera, 81 SCRA 246). Considering the circumstances of the instant case, we cannot hold respondent liable for his actions in handling the subject criminal case. An erroneous decision or order is presumed to have been issued in good faith in the absence of proof to the contrary. Complainant herein alleged that the order of respondent judge canceling the property bond and detention of the two accused present in court was in contravention with Sec. 20, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court. We find the 6 March 2001 order of respondent erroneous for failure to afford the accused reasonable time to increase their bond but its malicious intent, however, may not be presumed in the absence of any evidence to prove the same. It would be unjust to presume wrong intentions considering that respondent's questioned orders are not totally unjustifiable.
Section 22 of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court provides that:
Cancellation of bail - Upon application of the bondsmen, with due notice of the prosecutor the bail may be cancelled upon surrender of the accused or proof of his death.
The bail shall be deemed automatically cancelled upon acquittal of the accused, dismissal of the case or execution of the judgment of conviction.
In all instances, the cancellation shall be without prejudice to any liability on the bail.
It is therefore not enough that bondsmen produce the person of the accused at the time of the promulgation of the decision. (People vs. Celeste. L-25806, April 29, 1977, 76 SCRA 601, 605). It is also incumbent upon them to petition the court for their discharge as sureties (Mabuhay Insurance & Guaranty, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, L-28700, March 30, 1970, 32 SCRA 245, 251-252). Until after the accused has been surrendered and the court has ordered the cancellation of the bond, the bondsmen's liability continues (People vs. Valle, L-18044, April 30, 1963, 7 SCRA 1025, 1027).
The record reveals that the circumstances provided for in the afore-quoted provision for the cancellation of bail are not present in the case at hand. In addition, the two accused who did not file an increased bond were not presented before the court from the very beginning. Hence, complainant is liable for his undertaking under the bond to guarantee the appearance of the said accused, dismissal of the case or execution of the judgment of conviction. There is no attending circumstance present in the instant case that would justify the cancellation of bail. Note should be taken that considerable liberty was afforded to the complainant as bondsman to bring in court the two accused, but he failed.
Complainant should not put the blame on the respondent for his own failure to observe the procedure for his discharge as bondsman. Bondsmen are not supposed to be passive in discharging their responsibilities as such. They owe it to themselves to exercise a modicum of initiative especially with regard to their liabilities under the bond (Solante vs. Sandiganbayan, June 18, 1987).
We are satisfied with the respondent's explanation that there was a mere typographical error in the 19 November 2003 order wherein complainant was held liable for fifty thousand pesos for the two accused instead of only twenty thousand pesos for each of the two accused who failed to file an increased bond. We see no plausible reason to deal further with said matter.
Withal, respondent judge cannot be held administratively liable for holding complainant liable under the bond.
As to the complainant's prayer to inhibit respondent from hearing the subject criminal case, the Office of the Court Administrator has no jurisdiction to grant a motion/prayer for inhibition. The matter must be addressed to the respondent.
RECOMMENDATION:��������� Respectfully submitted for the consideration of the Honorable Court our recommendation that the instant case be DISMISSED for lack of merit.
and finding the evaluation and recommendation thereon to be in accord with law and the facts of the case, the Court hereby approves and adopts the same.
ACCORDINGLY, the administrative complaint against Judge Sancho A. Dames II is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
