ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ A.M. No. MTJ-99-1175. March 14, 2000]

VICTORINO CRUZ vs. JUDGE REYNOLD Q. YANEZA

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 14 2000.

A.M. No. MTJ-99-1175 (Victorino Cruz vs. Judge Reynold Q. Yaneza, MeTC, Branch 54, Navotas, Metro Manila.)

In our Decision of 9 March 1999 we dismissed from the service Judge Reynold Q. Yaneza for approving bail bonds and issuing release orders in violation of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court. We also directed the Office of the Court Administrator to look into the involvement of the bonding companies which reportedly provided most of the bail bonds approved by respondent Judge, and to determine their culpability, if any, in connection therewith.

In a memorandum dated 30 September 1999 the Office of the Court Administrator reported that Mega Pacific Insurance Corp. issued bail bonds in 49 cases, Imperial Insurance, Inc., in 26 cases, First Quezon City Insurance Corp., Inc., in 18 cases, Eastern Assurance and Surety Corp., in 8 cases, Wellington Insurance Co., Inc., in 5 cases, and Zenith Insurance Corp. in 2 cases.

Acting on the OCA Memorandum of 30 September 1999, this Court directed Mega Pacific Insurance Corporation, Imperial Insurance, Inc., First Quezon City Insurance Company Inc., Eastern Assurance & Surety Corp., Wellington Insurance Co., Inc., and Zenith Insurance Corporation to explain within ten (10) days from notice why they should not be blacklisted and disallowed to transact business with the courts for presenting bonds for approval by respondent Judge Yaneza for accused who were detained outside of Navotas and whose cases were pending in courts outside of his jurisdiction.

On 27 December 1999 Wellington Insurance Company filed its Motion for Extension of Time of Fifteen (15) Days Only to File Explanation. On 20 January 2000 it asked the Office of the Court Administrator that it be furnished copies of the (a) Complaint filed by Victorino Cruz against Judge Reynold Q. Yaneza; (b) Decision dated 9 March 1999; and (c) Memorandum of Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo dated 30 September 1999. These documents were allegedly needed by Wellington Insurance Co., Inc., to explain the circumstances relative to the bonds issued in connection with Crim. Cases Nos. 20933, 189164-66 and 7751-98 acted upon by respondent Judge.

We resolved to GRANT the request of Wellington Insurance Co., Inc., for copies of the (a) complaint filed by Victorino Cruz v. Judge Reynold Q. Yaneza, MeTC, Br. 54, Navotas, Metro Manila, and (b) Decision dated 9 March 1999.

We however DENY the request of Wellington Insurance Co., Inc., for a copy of the Memorandum of Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo dated 30 September 1999 addressed to the Chief Justice, in compliance with our directive to look into the involvement of certain bonding companies in the improper and irregular issuance of bail bonds, for the reason that it is confidential in nature. Nevertheless, for the satisfaction of the movant, and to facilitate its filing of an explanation, we reiterate herein the details, as enumerated in the 30 September 1999 OCA Memorandum, which movant may find pertinent and relevant in filing its explanation: (a) Crim. Case No. 20933, People v. Aida Lozano - Warrant of Arrest issued by RTC, Malabon, Policy No. 00183 issued by Wellington Insurance Co., Inc., Order of Release issued on 18 October 1998, JDF fees were not paid; (b) Crim. Cases Nos. 189164-66, People v. Dodgie Frayre - Warrant of Arrest issued by MeTC, Br. 50, Caloocan City, Policy No. 00266 issued by Wellington Insurance Co., Inc., Order of Release issued on 19 October 1998, JDF fees were not paid; and, (c) Crim. Cases Nos. 7751-98, People v. Anita L. Santos - Warrant of Arrest issued by MeTC, Br. 55 Malabon, Policy No.00684 issued by Wellington Insurance Co., Inc., Order of Release issued on 9 November 1998.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. 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