606 Phil.

243

THIRD DIVISION

[ A.M. No. MTJ-05-1588 [Formerly No. 04-9-511-RTC],

June 05, 2009 ]

JUDGE DIVINA LUZ P. AQUINO-SIMBULAN, COMPLAINANT, VS.

PRESIDING JUDGE NICASIO BARTOLOME (RETIRED), ACTING
CLERK OF COURT ROMANA C. PASCUAL, CLERK OF COURT
MILAGROS P. LEREY (RETIRED),AND DOCKET CLERK AMOR
DELA CRUZ, ALL OF THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, STA.
MARIA, BULACAN, RESPONDENTS.
DECISION

PERALTA, J.:
Before this Court is a letter-complaint[1] dated April 27, 2004 filed by complainant Judge
Divina Luz P. Aquino-Simbulan with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), alleging
that respondents Judge Nicasio V. Bartolome, together with Romana Pascual, Milagros
Lerey, and Amor dela Cruz, Acting Clerk of Court, retired Clerk of Court and Docket Clerk,
respectively, all of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Sta. Maria, Bulacan, committed grave
errors and discrepancies in processing the surety bond for the accused Rosalina Mercado in
Criminal Case No. 13360, entitled People of the Philippines v. Rosalina Mercado, et al.

In her complaint, Judge Simbulan alleged the following:

Criminal Case No. 13360 was originally raffled to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch
41, San Fernando, Pampanga, where complainant Judge presides. On September 18, 2003,
said branch of the RTC received an Indorsement from Warrant/Subpoena Officer PO3 Edwin
Villacentino of the Sasmuan Municipal Police Station stating that the accused Mercado
voluntarily surrendered before the MTC of Sta. Maria, Bulacan and posted her bail bond
through Summit Guaranty & Insurance Co., Inc., which was duly approved by respondent
Judge Bartolome on August 21, 2003. This prompted complainant to issue an Order[2] dated
October 29, 2003, directing respondent Lerey, then Clerk of Court of the MTC, to transmit to
the RTC within twenty-four (24) hours from receipt of said Order, the bond which the former
court approved.

When the Clerk of Court failed to comply, complainant Judge issued an Order [3] dated
January 12, 2004 directing the former to explain in writing within three (3) days from receipt
thereof why she should not be cited in contempt for delaying the administration of justice.

On January 29, 2004, the RTC received a letter[4] from respondent Romana Pascual, then
Acting Clerk of Court of the MTC, explaining that the bail bond in Criminal Case No. 13360
was approved by respondent Judge during the tenure of Lerey, and that the latter had retired
on August 26, 2003.
On February 12, 2004, the RTC received a written explanation [5] from Lerey stating that she
had misplaced and overlooked the subject surety bond, which resulted in the delay of its
transmission to the RTC. Attached to Lerey's letter were the following documents: (1) the
Court Order dated August 21, 2003 signed by respondent Judge; (2) Bond No. 46485 dated
August 21, 2003 with attachments; (3) Undertaking dated November 22, 2003; (4)
Certification from the Office of the Court Administrator, dated October 29, 2003; and (5)
Certification from Summit Guaranty and Insurance Company, Inc., dated November 22,
2003.

Upon perusal of the documents, complainant Judge discovered that the subject surety bond
bore some erasures, and its attachments were highly anomalous. In view of these findings, the
RTC issued a subpoena to respondents Pascual and Lerey directing them to appear before it
to explain the aforementioned errors.

During the hearing held on April 26, 2004, respondents Pascual and Lerey appeared before
the RTC, Branch 41, San Fernando, Pampanga, and the following facts were established
therein:
1. That respondent Judge issued an Order of Release dated August 21, 2003 without a
Certificate of Detention and Warrant of Arrest attached to the documents presented to
him;

2. That while the Order of Release was dated August 21, 2003, the Undertaking and
Certification from the bonding company were dated November 22, 2003 and October
29, 2003, respectively;

3. That it was Lerey who reviewed the documents before the surety bond was referred to
respondent Judge for the latter's approval; and

4. That the delay in the transmission of the bond and its supporting documents was
attributed to Amor dela Cruz, Docket Clerk of the MTC of Sta. Maria, Bulacan.[6]
After the hearing, Public Prosecutor Otto Macabulos stated that he found the explanation too
shallow and self-serving, and that he would file an indirect contempt case under Rule 71,
Section 3 (d) of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure against Lerey and Dela Cruz. He filed said
complaint[7] on June 21, 2004.  The RTC, Branch 41, San Fernando, Pampanga then directed
Lerey and Dela Cruz to explain in writing within fifteen (15) days why they should not be
cited in indirect contempt of court or improper conduct in the processing of the bail bond of
accused Mercado.[8]

In her Manifestation/Compliance[9] dated October 25, 2004, Lerey admitted lapses and
negligence in processing the subject bail bond and was remorseful for what happened. On the
other hand, Dela Cruz stated that there was no wrongdoing on her part in the processing of
the subject bail bond and that she merely followed instructions in mailing the said bail bond
to the RTC.[10]

In an Order[11] dated December 14, 2004, the RTC found Lerey guilty of indirect contempt
and sentenced her to pay a fine of P10,000.00, which she duly paid. However, it absolved
Dela Cruz from any liability as it found her explanation meritorious.

In the meantime, in his 1st Indorsement[12] dated February 26, 2004, Deputy Court
Administrator (DCA) Jose P. Perez referred to the Clerk of Court of the MTC of Sta. Maria,
Bulacan the Orders issued by complainant Judge relative to the surety bond for comment.
However, there was nothing on record to show that said Clerk of Court complied with the
directive.

DCA Perez also issued a 1st Indorsement[13] dated June 22, 2004 to respondent Judge referring
to the letter dated April 27, 2004 of complainant Judge, which discussed the errors and
discrepancies regarding the approval of the bail bond of the accused in Criminal Case No.
13360, with the instruction to the former to submit his comment thereto.

In compliance, respondent Judge submitted his 2nd Indorsement[14] dated July 13, 2004,
wherein he denied any liability concerning his approval of the subject surety bond. According
to him, Lerey had expressly admitted her negligence and lapses which caused the delay in
transmitting the bond to the RTC.  He stressed that just like any other judge, his Clerk of
Court (Lerey) enjoys his trust and confidence on matters pertaining to the affairs of the court,
including the review and approval of bail bonds. He added that he had no reason to doubt the
official actions of Lerey as the latter had been serving the court for around 37 years.

In a Memorandum[15] dated March 1, 2005, then Court Administrator, now Associate Justice
Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., recommended that the letter dated April 27, 2004 (and the Orders
attached thereto) of complainant Judge be treated as a formal administrative complaint and
redocketed as such against respondents Judge Bartolome, Pascual, Lerey, and Dela Cruz,
with the directive that the named respondents submit their respective Comments within ten
(10) days upon  receipt of the Order from the Court. Said Order [16] was issued by the Court on
April 13, 2005, and all the respondents submitted their Comments on May 13, 2005.

Respondent Judge and Pascual both averred that in the case for indirect contempt, only Lerey
was found guilty of negligence in the performance of her duties, and no other indictment was
made against them.[17]

On the other hand, Lerey stated in her Comment [18] that she has already been found guilty of
indirect contempt for failure to transmit the bail bond within the period directed by the court,
and paid the fine therefor, while Dela Cruz clarified that she has already been exonerated
from any liability or participation in said incident.

In a Resolution[19] dated June 22, 2005, the Court referred the administrative matter to the
Executive Judge of the RTC of Malolos City, Bulacan for investigation, report and
recommendation within 60 days from receipt of the record.

On April 7, 2006, 2nd Vice-Executive Judge Candido Belmonte submitted his Report, [20] which
contained the following findings:
The Investigating Court takes judicial notice that certain functions of court which are
not directly related to decision-making are delegated or reposed to court personnel.
Under this category falls the preparation and evaluation of documents for bail, for the
final approval of the judge. However, to rely solely on the representation made by the
Clerk of Court without making even a perfunctory perusal of the records is also a mark
of neglect. As such, this court finds the explanation of the respondent judge to be
inadequate to exculpate him for the oversight he committed.

x x x x

With respect to court personnel Romana Pascual, it was established that, at the time of
the commission of the subject administrative offense, she was not yet discharging the
 functions of an Officer-in-Charge. She had no hand in the approval of the bail. As a
matter of fact, she immediately informed respondent Milagros Lerey, the former Clerk
of Court, of the Order coming from Judge Simbulan of RTC-Branch 41, Pampanga
requiring them to transmit the supporting documents for bail. However, it was the
inaction of Milagros Lerey on the matter which caused the delay in the transmission.
The Court notes that the Order of Judge Simbulan was received at the MTC-Sta. Maria,
Bulacan at a time when there was a transition between Milagros Lerey and the present
Clerk of Court. During that interregnum, it was Romana Pascual who was the OIC. As
such, the letter-explanation of Romana Pascual, dated February 11, 2004, addressed to
Judge Simbulan is deemed sufficient explanation by this Investigating Court. Hence,
she is exonerated of the charges against her.

Regarding the charge against court personnel Amor dela Cruz, it appears to this Court
that although she was the one who finally delivered the supporting bail documents to
RTC-Branch 41, Pamapanga, she has nothing to do with the act of delay. This seems to
be the implication of the admission of Milagros Lerey that at the time of the approval
of the bail bond the supporting documents were incomplete. She only put the
documents in order after there was an Order from RTC-Branch 41, Pampanga to
transmit the same. The delay took place during this period. Once Milagros Lerey
handed the documents to Ms. Dela Cruz, she immediately transmitted them to RTC-
Branch 41, Pampanga. These facts borne out by her Comment submitted in the Indirect
Contempt Case before RTC-Branch 41, Pampanga dated July 19, 2004, which this
Investigating Court finds sufficient.[21]

Based on the foregoing, the Investigating Judge submitted the following recommendations:
1) For respondent Judge Nicasio Bartolome, he be found to be negligent of his duty to
supervise his court employees in the discharge of their respective functions. It is further
recommended that a fine of P5,000.00 be imposed on him.
2) For respondent Milagros Lerey, she be found to be grossly negligent of the discharge of her
functions as a Clerk of Court. It is further recommended that a fine of P5,000.00 be
imposed on her over and above the fine of P10,000.00 imposed on her in the Indirect
Contempt Case.
3) For respondents Romana Pascual and Amor dela Cruz, there was no direct documentary or
testimonial evidence that shows they have handled the bail bonds. Furthermore, they are
not responsible for the delay in the transmission of the pertinent documents. As such, it is
recommended that they be exonerated of the charges against them.
City of Malolos, Bulacan, April 7, 2006.[22]

In a Resolution[23] dated October 11, 2006, the Court referred the Report of the Investigating
Judge to the OCA for evaluation, report and recommendation within thirty (30) days from
receipt of records.

In his Memorandum[24] dated November 20, 2007, DCA Jose P. Perez observed that:
1. In approving the surety bond of the accused, respondent Judge violated Section
17, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court.[25] In the instant case, the accused Rosalina
Mercado was not arrested. That being the case, she should have filed her bail
bond with the court where her case was pending, i.e., the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 41, San Fernando City, Pampanga. In the absence of the judge thereof, it
could be done at another branch of the same court within the province of
Pampanga or City of San Fernando. Instead, accused Mercado filed her bond in
 the Municipal Trial Court of Sta. Maria, Bulacan, where respondent Judge
presides, who approved the same and ordered her release from custody.

2. Respondent Judge did not require the accused to submit the supporting
documents pertinent to the application for a bond. It appears that there was no
Certificate of Detention presented to him; hence, there was no legal justification
for him to issue the Order of Release and process the bond since the accused was
not detained within his jurisdiction. Also, there was no Warrant of Arrest
attached to the documents presented to him. Moreover, all the supporting papers
were belatedly filed: (a) Undertaking was dated 22 November 2003; (b)
Certification from the Office of the Court Administrator was dated 29 October
2003; and (c) the Certification from Summit Guaranty & Insurance Co., Inc. was
dated 22 November 2003.

3. Respondent Judge failed to live up to the standards of a good magistrate. Not

only did he approve the bail bond of the accused without the requisite authority
to do so, his manner of doing so showed a flagrant disregard for the applicable
procedural law he had sworn to uphold and serve. He committed gross
misconduct by blatantly disregarding the Rules and settled jurisprudence.
These findings led DCA Perez to recommend the following:
Considering that Judge Bartolome has compulsorily retired from the service effective
on 11 October 2006, we recommend that a fine in the amount of Forty Thousand Pesos
(P40,000.00) be deducted from his retirement benefits.

With respect to Clerk of Court Milagros Lerey, who already retired from the service on
26 August 2003, we also find her guilty of gross misconduct. As can be gleaned from
the records, she admitted her wrongdoing. Had she not retired, we could have meted
her the extreme penalty of dismissal. We, therefore, recommend that she be fined in the
amount of Forty Thousand Pesos (P40,000.00).

With respect to respondents Romana Pascual and Amor dela Cruz, there being no
evidence linking them to the processing of the questioned bond, it is recommended that
the charges against them be dismissed.[26]

In a Resolution[27] dated April 2, 2008, the Court required the parties to manifest within ten
(10) days from notice whether they were willing to submit the case for decision on the basis
of the pleadings/records already filed and submitted.  All respondents manifested their
willingness to submit the case for decision: respondents Lerey, Pascual and Dela Cruz having
complied on May 13, 2008, and Judge Bartolome on May 23, 2008. The Court submitted the
administrative case for resolution on July 25, 2008.

After a careful evaluation of the records and the Reports of the Investigating Judge and the
OCA, the Court holds that there were indeed grave errors and discrepancies committed by
respondents Judge Bartolome and Lerey in processing the surety bond for the accused in
Criminal Case No. 13360.

The following provisions of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure apply before an
accused can be released on bail:
Sec. 14. Bail, where filed. (a) Bail in the amount fixed may be filed with the court
where the case is pending, or, in the absence or unavailability of the judge thereof, with
another branch of the same court within the province or city. If the accused is arrested
 in a province, city or municipality other than where the case is pending, bail may be
filed also with any regional trial court of said place, or, if no judge thereof is available,
with any metropolitan trial judge, municipal trial judge or municipal circuit trial judge
therein. x x x

Sec. 16. Release on bail. The accused must be discharged upon approval of the bail by
the judge with whom it was filed in accordance with Section 14 hereof.

Whenever bail is filed with a court other than where the case is pending, the judge
accepting the bail shall forward the bail, the order of release and other supporting
papers to the court where the case is pending, which may, for good reason, require a
different one to be filed.

The OCA's Report revealed that the accused Rosalina Mercado was not arrested. The proper
procedure, according to the above-cited rules, would have been to file her bail bond with the
RTC Branch 41, San Fernando, Pampanga where her case was pending.  Had complainant
Judge been absent or was unavailable at that time, the accused could file for bail with another
branch of the RTC in Pampanga or in San Fernando City. However, the accused filed her
surety bond with the MTC of Sta. Maria, Bulacan, where it was approved by respondent
Judge.

Not only did respondent Judge erroneously order the release of the accused, but he also failed
to require submission of the supporting documents needed in the application for a bond.
There was no Certificate of Detention or Warrant of Arrest attached to the bond transmitted
by the MTC to the complainant Judge.  Moreover, the other supporting documents were
belatedly filed.  Records show that respondent Judge approved the bail bond on August 21,
2003, but the Undertaking was dated November 22, 2003, the Certification from the OCA
was dated October 29, 2003, and the Certification from Summit Guaranty and Insurance Co.,
Inc. was dated November 22, 2003.

Respondent Judge contends that Lerey, who has been Clerk of Court for 37 years, was given
the simple matter of examining the documents attached to the application for a bail bond. For
her part, Lerey admitted her negligence when she misplaced and overlooked the surety bond
policy, resulting in the delay in the transmission of said documents to the RTC. Notably, she
also failed to give an explanation for the erasures which complainant discovered on the surety
bond.  By such acts, it is evident that Lerey did not measure up to the standards required by
Section 1, Canon IV of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel[28] as quoted:
Section 1.  Court personnel shall at all times perform official duties properly and with
diligence. They shall commit themselves exclusively to the business and
responsibilities of their office during working hours.

In addition, a clerk of court has a vital function in the prompt and sound administration of
justice since his or her office is the hub of adjudicative and administrative orders, processes,
and concerns.[29] He or she also has the duty to ensure an orderly and efficient record
management system in the court and to supervise the personnel under her office to function
effectively. [30]

However, Lerey's admission of negligence cannot excuse respondent Judge from liability in
the irregular processing of the bail bond.  Pertinent provisions of the Code of Judicial
Conduct[31] state that:
Rule 3.08. - A judge should diligently discharge administrative responsibilities,
 maintain professional competence in court management, and facilitate the performance
of the administrative functions of other judges and court personnel.

Rule 3.09. - A judge should organize and supervise the court personnel to ensure the
prompt and efficient dispatch of business, and require at all times the observance of
high standards of public service and finality.

In Bellena v. Judge Perello,[32] wherein respondent Judge attributed the delay in transmittal of
records to her clerk of court, the former was still found guilty and sentenced to pay a fine.
The Court held that, although the clerk of court is primarily responsible for the
implementation of respondent judge's orders, the fact remains that respondent judge is tasked
with administrative supervision over his or her personnel. It is the responsibility of the judge
to always see to it that his/her orders are properly and promptly enforced, and that case
records are properly stored and kept. Thus, in the present case, respondent Judge himself
should have verified that the documents for bail were complete and correct instead of relying
on the representations of his clerk of court.

With regard to respondents Pascual and Dela Cruz, the Court observes that there is no
evidence to show that they have contributed to the irregularities or delay in transmittal of the
bail bond. At the time of the commission of the administrative offense, Pascual was not yet
discharging the functions of an Acting Clerk of Court.  Dela Cruz, on the other hand, merely
delivered the supporting documents to the RTC.

Having thus established the respondents' liabilities, what remains for the Court's contention
are their penalties.

Under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, [33] the acts of
respondent Judge and Lerey may be classified as gross neglect of duty, which is punishable
by dismissal under Rule IV, Section 52 A(2) thereof.  Neglect of duty denotes the failure of
an employee to give one's attention to a task expected of him. Gross neglect is such neglect
which, from the gravity of the case or the frequency of instances, becomes so serious in its
character as to endanger or threaten the public welfare. [34]

In Ulat-Marrero v. Torio, Jr.,[35] the Court has categorized as a grave offense of gross neglect
of duty, the failure of a court process server to serve summons which resulted in the delayed
resolution of a case. As corollarily applied to the present case, where respondents released the
accused on temporary liberty despite the absence of the required supporting documents for
bail, the former are likewise liable for gross neglect of duty.

Were it not for the fact that both respondents, Judge Bartolome and Lerey, have retired on
October 11, 2006 and August 26, 2003, respectively, the Court would have dismissed them
from the service.  Instead, it orders respondents to pay a fine to be deducted from their
retirement benefits, in accordance with its rulings in Moncada v. Cervantes,[36] Office of the
Court Administrator v. Paredes,[37] and Soria v. Oliveros.[38]

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court finds:

1. Presiding Judge Nicasio Bartolome (retired) GUILTY of GROSS NEGLECT OF
DUTY for which he is meted a fine in the amount of Forty Thousand Pesos
(P40,000.00), to be deducted from his retirement benefits; and

2. Clerk of Court Milagros Lerey (retired) GUILTY of GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY

for which she is meted a fine in the amount of Forty Thousand Pesos (P40,000.00), to
 be deducted from her retirement benefits.
SO ORDERED. 

Ynares-Santiago, (Chairperson), Carpio*, Corona**, and Nachura, JJ., concur.

* Designated to sit as an additional member, per Special Order No. 646 dated May 15, 2009.
**
Designated to sit as an additional member, per Special Order No. 631 dated April 29, 2009.
[1]
Rollo, pp. 10-13.
[2]
Id. at 34.
[3]
Id. at 15-16.
[4]
Id. at 37.
[5]
Id. at 43.
[6]
TSN dated April 26, 2004, id. at 69-94.
[7]
Rollo, pp. 59-61.
[8]
Id. at 95-96.
[9]
Id. at 97.
[10]
Id.  at 100-102.
[11]
Id. at 44-45.
[12]
Id. at 14.
[13]
Id. at 7.
[14]
Id. at 8-9.
[15]
Id. at 25-28.
[16]
Id. at 29-30.
[17]
Id.  at 31-33; 57-58.
[18]
Id. at 47-48.
[19]
Id. at 106.
[20]
Id. at 153-158.
[21]
Id. at 156-157.
[22]
Id. at 158.
[23]
Id. at 191.
[24]
Id. at 199-205.
[25]
SEC. 17. Bail, where filed.(a) Bail in the amount fixed may be filed with the court where
the case is pending, or, in the absence or unavailability of the judge thereof, with any regional
trial judge, metropolitan trial judge, municipal trial judge, or municipal circuit trial judge in
the province, city, or municipality. If the accused is arrested in a province, city or
municipality other than where the case is pending, bail may also be filed with any Regional
Trial Court of said place, or, if no judge thereof is available, with any metropolitan trial
judge, municipal trial judge, or municipal circuit trial judge.
[26]
Id.  at 204.
[27]
Id. at 231.
[28]
A.M. No. 03-06-13-SC issued by the Supreme Court on June 1, 2004.

Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Trocino, A.M. No. RTJ-05-1936, May 29,
[29]

2007, 523 SCRA 262, 274.

Fonghe  v. Bajarias-Cartilla, A.M. No. P-05-1987, February 10, 2006, 482 SCRA 142,
[30]

147.
[31]
Issued on September 5, 1989.
[32]
A.M. No. RTJ-04-1846, January 31, 2005, 450 SCRA 122, 133.

Promulgated by the Civil Service Commission through Resolution No. 99-1936 dated
[33]

August 31, 1999 and implemented by Memorandum Circular No. 19, series of 1999.
[34]
Rodrigo-Ebron v. Adolfo, A.M. No. P-06-2231, April 27, 2007, 522 SCRA 286, 293.
[35]
A.M. No. P-01-1519, November 19, 2003, 416 SCRA 177.
[36]
A.M. No. MTJ-06-1639, July 28, 2006, 497 SCRA 1.
[37]
AM. No. P-06-2103, April 17, 2007, 521 SCRA 365.
[38]
A.M. No. P-00-1372, May 16, 2005, 458 SCRA 410.
© Supreme Court E-Library 2012
This website was designed and developed, and is maintained, by the E-Library Technical
Staff.