Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1982 > July 1982 Decisions > A.M. No. 2681-CFI July 30, 1982 - GEORGE O. JAVIER v. MANUEL E. VALENZUELA

201 Phil. 56:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[A.M. No. 2681-CFI. July 30, 1982.]

GEORGE O. JAVIER, Complainant, v. HON. MANUEL E. VALENZUELA, Presiding Judge, Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch XXIX, Pasay City, Respondent.

SYNOPSIS


Complainant charged respondent Judge with gross ignorance of the law or rules, and/or incompetence or misconduct, in approving the bail bond of accused Rolando Vidal in Criminal Case No. LP-81-1213-P without the required supporting papers. The respondent traversed the material allegations of the complaint. The complaint was referred to Justice Crisolito Pascual of the Court of Appeals for investigation, report and recommendation, with a view to pinpointing the person primarily responsible for the bail bond which was allegedly missing. During the investigation, the court employee directly in charge of the rollos in criminal cases corroborated the testimony of the branch clerk of court of Branch 29 that the original bail bond undertaken by Sanpiro Insurance Corporation for the accused Rolando Vidal was complete with the necessary supporting papers, as well as the testimony as to the routing of bail bonds filed in court. The said employee also admitted that when complainant’s lawyer requested for a copy of the bail bond, he failed to send someone to accompany the person asked by the lawyer to bring the rollo to the xerox machine, and immediately filed the rollo after it was returned. Before the respondent Judge could, however, present his evidence, complainant filed a formal resistance. The Inquest Justice recommended dismissal of the complaint and exoneration of the respondent because the respondent had nothing to do with the loss of the bail bond; the bail bond was complete with supporting papers when respondent judge approved it; and complainant had filed his formal resistance.

The Supreme Court approved the recommendation of Justice Pascual to dismiss the complaint and exonerate the respondent Judge of the charges against him, the findings of fact contained in his report being supported by the records.


SYLLABUS


CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; SUPREME COURT; ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION OVER LOWER COURTS; COMPLAINTS AGAINST JUDGES; GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW OR RULES AND/OR INCOMPETENCE OR MISCONDUCT; DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF BASIS IN FACT. — An administrative complaint for ignorance of the law or rules and/or incompetence or misconduct filed against a judge for having allegedly approved a bail bond (later found to be missing from the rollo) without the required supporting papers will be dismissed and the respondent judge will be exonerated from the charges where, from the findings of fact as found from the report of the Investigating Justice and supported by the records, "respondent Judge Manuel E. Valenzuela had nothing to do with the loss of the bail bond filed for the accused Rolando Vidal; the said bail bond was complete with supporting papers when the respondent Judge approved it; and the complainant himself manifested his desire to drop the complaint even before the respondent Judge could present his evidence and filed his formal resistance on March 10, 1982, . . ."


D E C I S I O N


MAKASIAR, J.:


Complainant George O. Javier charges respondent Judge Manuel E. Valenzuela with gross ignorance of the law or rules, and/or incompetence or misconduct, in approving the bail bond of accused Rolando Vidal in Criminal Case No. LP-81-1213-P without the required supporting papers.

The respondent Judge traversed the material allegations of the complaint.

In a resolution dated January 19, 1982 the complaint was referred to Mr. Justice Crisolito Pascual of the Court of Appeals for investigation, report and recommendation, with a view to pinpointing the person primarily responsible for the alleged missing bail bond.

In his report dated March 18, 1982, Justice Pascual stated:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . In view of the specific instruction of the Supreme Court for the undersigned to conduct a thorough investigation to pinpoint the person primarily responsible for the alleged missing bail bond (Ibid., p. 37), the following persons were subpoenaed to appear at the investigation, namely, the Branch Clerk of Court of Branch 29 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Ibid., p. 48), the Branch Clerk of Court of Branch 28 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Ibid., p. 49), where Criminal Case No. LP-1213-P was reassigned, the employee directly in charge of the rollos of criminal cases in Branch 29 (Ibid., p. 53), the former lawyer of the complainant (Ibid., p. 52), and the complainant and respondent themselves (Ibid., p. 38).chanrobles law library

"The investigation started on February 26, 1982 (Ibid., p. 38).

"The prosecution had only one witness, the complainant himself.

"At the hearing, the complainant testified that the personal bail bond posted for Rolando Vidal in Criminal Case No. LP-1213-P by the Sanpiro Insurance Corporation was prepared on the bond-form of Citizens Insurance Company by crossing out the name of ‘Citizens Insurance Company’ on the form and typing above it the name ‘Sanpiro Insurance Corporation’ (Exhibit D, Ibid., p. 10). The complainant also testified that ‘there was no picture of the accused, no identification as to who filed the bail bond — no address of the accused — the criminal case number was also missing — no notice of the fiscal regarding the personal bail bond’ (t.s.n., pp. 19-20, 44-45).

"In his cross-examination, the complainant admitted that he knows Sanpiro Insurance Corporation as an established insurance company (Ibid., p. 44). He also admitted that Sanpiro Insurance Corporation had issued other good bail bonds with supporting documents. The complainant couldn’t do otherwise after he was shown several bail bonds issued by Sanpiro Insurance Corporation in other criminal cases, namely, CIC Bonds Nos. 00486, 00492, 00601, 00602, 00958, and 00969. These bail bonds appear exactly like the bail bond posted for the accused Rolando Vidal (Exhibit D, Ibid., pp. 10-11), that is to say, the name ‘Citizens Insurance Company’ on the bond-forms was also crossed out and the name ‘Sanpiro Insurance Corporation’ typed above it. It turned out that Citizens Insurance Company was sold and its name was changed to Sanpiro Insurance Corporation (Ibid., p. 82). The bond-forms of Citizens Insurance Company were used while Sanpiro Insurance Corporation was waiting for its own bond forms (Ibid., p. 82).

"Atty. Basilio B. Bolante, the Branch Clerk of Court of Branch 29, testified, without any contradiction, that the bail bond issued by Sanpiro Insurance Corporation was a complete bond, with the necessary supporting papers (Ibid., p. 67). He also described the routing of bail bonds filed in court (Ibid., pp. 69-70). According to Atty. Bolante, bail bonds filed in court are first examined by him as to their completeness, whether they are in order and whether the necessary supporting papers are attached to the bail bonds. If a bail bond is complete, then it is attached to the cover of the criminal case rollo and submitted to the presiding judge for his approval after which it goes to the section of criminal cases in the office of the branch clerk of court.

"Mr. Arsenio Astudillo, the court employee directly in charge of the rollos in criminal cases recalled that the original bail bond undertaken by Sanpiro Insurance Corporation for the accused Rolando Vidal was complete with the necessary supporting papers. He also corroborated the testimony of Atty. Basilio Bolante as to the routing of bail bonds filed in court.

"Before the respondent Judge could present his evidence, it became evident even to the complainant that his complaint was indeed on shaky ground. The undersigned investigator, noticing this turn of the case, asked the complainant if he was still set on prosecuting the case. To his credit, the complainant, after thinking about it for a while, manifested that he was willing to drop his complaint against the respondent and that he will soon file the necessary manifestation (Ibid., p. 79). This he did on March 10, 1982 (Ibid., p. 84).

". . . As stated above, upon the filing of a bail bond, the branch clerk of court examines the bond for its completeness. If the bail bond is in order together with the necessary supporting papers, it is attached to the cover of the criminal case rollo and sent to the presiding judge for approval. Thereafter, the rollo, together with the bail bond, is sent to the employee in charge of the rollos of criminal cases for safekeeping. When a criminal case is ready for the calendar, it is then sent to the branch clerk of court who assumes control of the rollo (t.s.n., p. 62).

"In the present case, the former lawyer of the complainant, Atty. Amado Ocampo, asked the branch clerk of court if he could see the rollo of Criminal Case No. LP-1213-P in order to have a xerox copy of the bail bond filed for the accused Rolando Vidal (Ibid., p. 46). The branch clerk of court referred Atty. Ocampo to Arsenio Astudillo, the employee directly in charge of the rollo (Ibid., p. 66). Atty. Ocampo then asked someone to have the bail bond xeroxed for him (Ibid., p. 46). The rollo was brought down to the next lower floor where the xerox machine was located (Ibid., p. 47).

"Arsenio Astudillo admitted that he failed to send someone to accompany the person bringing the rollo to the xerox machine. After the rollo was returned to Arsenio Astudillo, he failed to file the rollo immediately since he was very busy attending to the requests of lawyers and interested parties. He also admitted that it is quite possible that the bail bond may have been detached or separated from the cover of the rollo and misplaced.

"The matter was reported to the branch clerk of court who immediately conducted an inquiry and search (Ibid., pp. 61, 63-64 which proved fruitless (Ibid., p. 64).

Because "respondent Judge Manuel E. Valenzuela had nothing to do with the loss of the bail bond filed for the accused Rolando Vidal; that the said bail bond was complete with supporting papers when the respondent Judge approved it; and that the complainant himself manifested his desire to drop the complaint even before the respondent Judge could present his evidence and filed his formal resistance on March 10, 1982, . . ." Justice Pascual recommended the dismissal of the complaint and exoneration of the respondent Judge.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

The findings of fact as contained in the foregoing report are supported by the records.

WHEREFORE, THE COMPLAINT AGAINST RESPONDENT JUDGE MANUEL E. VALENZUELA IS HEREBY DISMISSED AS IT HAS NO BASIS IN FACT AND THE SAID RESPONDENT JUDGE IS HEREBY EXONERATED OF THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, C.J., Teehankee, Barredo, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Escolin, Vasquez and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.

Relova, J., took no part.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





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






July-1982 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-45245 July 2, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELINO T. GABILAN

  • G.R. No. L-57573 July 5, 1982 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. ERNESTO DATU

  • G.R. No. L-58268 July 5, 1982 - ENRIQUETA S. TY v. EUSTAQUIA ELALE

  • G.R. No. L-27546 July 16, 1982 - PHILIPPINE CHARITY SWEEPSTAKES OFFICE v. ASSOC. OF SWEEPSTAKES STAFF PERSONNEL

  • G.R. No. L-30595 July 16, 1982 - MAGDALENA S. JOSON v. FORTUNATO CRISOSTOMO

  • G.R. Nos. L-32694 & L-33119 July 16, 1982 - FIDEL SILVESTRE v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-36094 July 16, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANASTACIO DELASA

  • G.R. No. L-30269 July 19, 1982 - EPITACIO BUERANO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-40432 July 19, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO FELIPE

  • G.R. No. L-41543 July 19, 1982 - LEANDRO SEDECO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-51458 July 19, 1982 - MANUEL YAP v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-52498 July 19, 1982 - JESUS B. PACQUING v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • A.M. No. 1895-CFI July 20, 1982 - LAMBERTO MACIAS v. GIBSON ARAULA

  • A.C. No. 2160 July 20, 1982 - AVELINO FRAN v. JUANITO FUERTE

  • A.M. No. 2691-CFI July 20, 1982 - ARTEMIO T. VICTORIA v. SEGUNDO M. ZOSA

  • G.R. No. L-30201 July 20, 1982 - CARMEN P. URBANO v. J. M. TUASON & CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-31682 July 20, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VIRGILIO NACUSPAG

  • G.R. No. L-32661 July 20, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESAR DE LA CRUZ

  • G.R. No. L-34840 July 20, 1982 - MARIO RODIS MAGASPI v. JOSE R. RAMOLETE

  • G.R. No. L-35333 July 20, 1982 - FELIX M. SULIT v. JOEL P. TIANGCO

  • G.R. No. L-37751 July 20, 1982 - MANUEL LAPINIG v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-38140 July 20, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ABUNDIO LABINIA

  • G.R. No. L-38440 July 20, 1982 - DOMINGO V. FLORES, JR. v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE

  • G.R. No. L-41399 July 20, 1982 - REPUBLIC OF PHILIPPINES v. CESAR GUY

  • G.R. No. L-41958 July 20, 1982 - DONALD MEAD v. MANUEL A. ARGEL

  • G.R. No. L-42963 July 20, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REINO P. ROLL

  • G.R. No. L-46954 July 20, 1982 - ELPIDIO YABES, ET AL. v. NAPOLEON FLOJO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47740 July 20, 1982 - LIM PIN v. CONCHITA LIAO TAN

  • G.R. No. L-47953 July 20, 1982 - LILIA B. GALCERAN v. SECRETARY OF LABOR

  • G.R. No. L-50439 July 20, 1982 - ENRIQUE T. YUCHENGCO, INC. v. CONRADO M. VELAYO

  • G.R. No. L-52435 July 20, 1982 - ELIZABETH SINCLAIR v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-56554 July 20, 1982 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-56833 July 20, 1982 - RAMON V. MERANO v. EDUARDO C. TUTAAN

  • G.R. No. L-58011-12 July 20, 1982 - VIR-JEN SHIPPING AND MARINE SERVICES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-58678 July 20, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IRINEO V. MENDOZA

  • G.R. Nos. L-58973-76 July 20, 1982 - INOCENTES AMORA, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-59519 July 20, 1982 - ADELA FRANCISCO v. ALFREDO M. GORGONIO

  • G.R. No. L-35726 July 21, 1982 - SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM v. CITY OF BACOLOD, ET AL.

    201 Phil. 1

  • G.R. No. L-58289 July 24, 1982 - VALENTINO L. LEGASPI v. MINISTER OF FINANCE

    201 Phil. 8

  • A.C. No. 792 July 30, 1982 - NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. JESUS M. PONCE

    201 Phil. 37

  • A.C. No. 906 July 30, 1982 - TERESITA B. TABILIRAN v. JOSE C. TABILIRAN, JR.

    201 Phil. 40

  • A.C. No. 1182 July 30, 1982 - ISABELO C. ORIJUELA v. TEMISTOCLES A. ROSARIO

    201 Phil. 45

  • A.C. No. 2343 July 30, 1982 - FACUNDO LUBIANO v. JOEL G. GORDOLLA

    201 Phil. 47

  • A.M. No. 2397-MJ July 30, 1982 - ERNESTO D. BONILLA v. LEONARDO AFABLE

    201 Phil. 52

  • A.M. No. 2681-CFI July 30, 1982 - GEORGE O. JAVIER v. MANUEL E. VALENZUELA

    201 Phil. 56

  • G.R. No. L-26676 July 30, 1982 - PHILIPPINE REFINING CO., INC. v. NG SAM

    201 Phil. 61

  • G.R. No. L-28692 July 30, 1982 - CONRADA VDA. DE ABETO v. PHILIPPINE AIR LINES, INC.

    201 Phil. 82

  • G.R. No. L-29376 July 30, 1982 - MARIANO WONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

    201 Phil. 69

  • G.R. No. L-30279 July 30, 1982 - PHIL. NATIONAL BANK v. PHIL. NATIONAL BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (PEMA)

    201 Phil. 89

  • G.R. No. L-30456 July 30, 1982 - VIRGILIO S. VELAZCO CAVITE v. EMILIA S. BLAS

    201 Phil. 122

  • G.R. No. L-30738 July 30, 1982 - BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS v. JOSE ZULUETA

    201 Phil. 131

  • G.R. No. L-31818 July 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDMUNDO GADIANO

    201 Phil. 143

  • G.R. Nos. L-32144-45 July 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NAÑO L. MILFLORES

    201 Phil. 154

  • G.R. No. L-32463 July 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE L. BATOY

    201 Phil. 179

  • G.R. No. L-32997 July 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANICETO PEDROSO

    201 Phil. 184

  • G.R. No. L-33169 July 30, 1982 - GLICERIO JAVELLANA v. CESAR KINTANAR

  • G.R. No. L-33327 July 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO ALMENDRAS

    201 Phil. 211

  • G.R. Nos. L-34527-28 July 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO MAGBANUA

    201 Phil. 219

  • G.R. No. L-35745 July 30, 1982 - JULIANA VDA. DE LICARDO v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

    201 Phil. 247

  • G.R. No. L-35950 July 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARNOLD ZURBITO

    201 Phil. 256

  • G.R. Nos. L-36662-63 July 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FILOMENO CAMANO

    201 Phil. 268

  • G.R. No. L-37270 July 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAGNO B. PABLO

    201 Phil. 284

  • G.R. No. L-37632 July 30, 1982 - GREGORIA VDA. DE PAMAN v. ALBERTO V. SEÑERIS

    201 Phil. 290

  • G.R. No. L-38208 July 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ENECITO VILLASON

    201 Phil. 298

  • G.R. No. L-38544 July 30, 1982 - LUZ E. BALITAAN v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BATANGAS

  • G.R. No. L-38859 July 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO VIZCARRA

    201 Phil. 326

  • G.R. No. L-39966 July 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMO TABADERO

    201 Phil. 340

  • G.R. No. L-40494 July 30, 1982 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO BURGOS

    201 Phil. 353

  • G.R. No. L-49401 July 30, 1982 - RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORP. v. JOSE P. ARRO

    201 Phil. 362

  • G.R. No. L-55687 July 30, 1982 - JUASING HARDWARE v. RAFAEL T. MENDOZA

    201 Phil. 369

  • G.R. Nos. L-57601-06 July 30, 1982 - LAZARO VENIEGAS v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    201 Phil. 376

  • G.R. No. L-57841 July 30, 1982 - BERNARDO GALLEGO v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. L-59283 July 30, 1982 - CRISANTO MOLINO v. COURT OF APPEALS

    201 Phil. 385

  • G.R. No. L-60236 July 30, 1982 - DOMESTIC SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOC., INC. v. MILAGROS VILLAFANIA-CAGUIOA

    201 Phil. 390