JUDGE GENEROSO V. MIRASOL, COMPLAINANT-PETITIONER,VS. JOSE O. DE LA TORRE, JR., RESPONDENT.

Mirasol versus De la Torre

The Case

This is an administrative matter in which Judge Generoso V. Mirasol, presiding judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Pio Duran, Albay, charged his own Clerk of Court, Jose O. de la Torre, Jr., with gross misconduct and falsification of an official document. The judge asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the respondent from the service. The case matters because it shows how the Court treats a court employee who fabricates a judge's order to free an accused person, and then tampers with the records to hide it. It is a leading illustration of the strict standard of honesty and integrity demanded of everyone in the administration of justice, from the highest to the lowest level.

Procedural History

The complainant Judge filed a letter-complaint, entitled Report, with the Court Administrator on July 28, 1988. The Supreme Court ordered the respondent to answer, and he filed his Answer only on December 29, 1989, after the Court ordered him to show cause why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with or held in contempt for failing to comply with the earlier resolution. In a resolution of the Court En Banc dated June 7, 1990, the case was referred to Executive Judge Rafael Santelices of the Regional Trial Court of Ligao, Albay for investigation, report, and recommendation. Because Judge Santelices was later appointed Presiding Judge of a branch of the Regional Trial Court of Legazpi City, the investigation was taken over by Judge Jose S. Sañez. After hearings, the Investigating Judge submitted a twelve-page Report dated December 21, 1990, finding the respondent guilty as charged and recommending his dismissal. The matter then came before the Supreme Court En Banc, which rendered its own decision.

Facts

In Criminal Case Number 1351 for Homicide, entitled People versus Aquino Nares, the accused was released from detention on the strength of an Order dated June 22, 1987, purportedly approved and signed by Judge Mirasol. When the victim's mother complained, the judge ordered a physical inventory of his active cases. He could not recall approving any bail in that case, nor signing any release order. The records were not immediately produced by the respondent, who was the records custodian as Clerk of Court. When they were finally produced, the judge found a bail bond bearing only the signatures of the accused and his alleged bondsmen, and an original copy of the release order with his name typed on it, the respondent's initials underneath, and the handwritten signature of the accused on the left side. The police blotter recorded that the accused had been released by virtue of an order of release signed by Judge Mirasol. The copy given to the police was a carbon original stamped Original Signed, again bearing the respondent's initials.

About a month later, the judge discovered that the bail bond had been filled up, now showing approval by the Officer in Charge Mayor Constantino del Mundo. The original copy of the release order now also bore the signature of the same Officer in Charge, who signed for and in the absence of the judge. The judge had these tampered documents photocopied and sent to the Court Administrator.

On the second charge, the judge had issued both oral and written memoranda to all court personnel prohibiting the bringing home of court records. Despite this, the respondent took home the records of Criminal Case Number 1339 for Theft. This was discovered on March 2, 1990, the day the accused was to be arraigned. The accused and the opposing counsel had to wait until almost eleven o'clock in the morning, and the arraignment proceeded only after the process server was ordered to fetch the records from the respondent's house. The respondent denied any participation in preparing the bail bond beyond suggesting that the principal and his bondsmen sign it in advance, and said his only part in the order was to prepare and type it, affix his initials, and stamp the carbon copies. He denied bringing home the records of Criminal Case Number 1339, claiming that the court stenographer, his sister-in-law, took them to his house to seek his help in sending notices and subpoenas. The complainant did not pursue the charge of extortion for difficulty in securing witnesses.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent Clerk of Court is guilty of falsification of an official document in connection with the release order and bail bond in Criminal Case Number 1351.
• Whether or not the respondent is guilty of gross misconduct and dishonesty for causing the release of the accused on the basis of a falsified order and for later tampering with the records to cover it up.
• Whether or not the respondent violated existing reasonable office regulations when he brought court records to his house.
• Whether or not these acts warrant dismissal from the service.

Applicable Provisions

Section 36, paragraph b, of Presidential Decree Number 807, the Civil Service Decree of the Philippines, provides:

(b) The following shall be grounds for disciplinary action: (1) Dishonesty; x x x (4) Misconduct; x x x (12) Violation of existing x x x reasonable office regulations; (13) Falsification of official document; x x x (25) Insubordination; x x x (27) Conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

This provision supplies the very grounds for disciplinary action on which the respondent's acts were measured, and the Court noted that the same grounds are reproduced in Section 46, paragraph b, Chapter I, Subtitle A, Title I, Book V of Executive Order Number 292, the Administrative Code of 1987.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court affirmed the finding of the Investigating Judge that the evidence of guilt was clear and strong. The respondent was guilty of falsification of an official document when he caused it to appear that the complainant Judge had approved the bail bond and ordered the release of the accused, when in fact the judge did not. When his acts were discovered, he committed another falsification by accomplishing another bail bond and preparing another release order signed by the Officer in Charge Mayor, purporting approval in the absence of the judge. To all legal intents and purposes, the respondent usurped the functions of the judge, and when found out he tried to cover it up, aggravating it with another crime.

On the second issue, the Court held that the respondent was guilty of dishonesty and gross misconduct. The reported acts were proven by incontrovertible evidence, and such acts destroy the good image of the Judiciary.

On the third issue, the Court held that the respondent violated existing reasonable office regulations issued by the complainant Judge. Court records are confidential documents. They must not be taken out of the court without proper authority and without the necessary safeguards to ensure their confidentiality and integrity. No such authority and safeguards were shown, and an office memorandum expressly prohibited the practice. The Court found the respondent's explanation a lame excuse.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that these acts warranted the supreme penalty of dismissal. It stressed the standard required of all those in the service:

Those who are involved in the administration of justice from the highest to the lowest level must live up to the strictest standard of honesty and integrity in the public service. x x x Those who cannot live up to this criterion should get out of the government service. It is as simple as that.

Doctrine

A Clerk of Court who fabricates a judge's approval of a bail bond and a release order, and later tampers with the records to conceal it, is guilty of dishonesty, gross misconduct, and falsification of an official document under Section 36, paragraph b, of the Civil Service Decree, now reproduced in the Administrative Code of 1987. Court records are confidential documents that must not be taken out of the court without proper authority and without the necessary safeguards to ensure their confidentiality and integrity. Everyone involved in the administration of justice, from the highest to the lowest level, must live up to the strictest standard of honesty and integrity in the public service, and those who cannot should get out of the government service.

Disposition

The Court found the respondent Clerk of Court guilty and dismissed him from the service, with forfeiture of his retirement benefits, if any, and with prejudice to his reinstatement in government service, including government-owned or controlled corporations.

Remember This

Memorize the line that those involved in the administration of justice, from the highest to the lowest level, must live up to the strictest standard of honesty and integrity, and those who cannot should get out of the government service. Examiners use this case on the confidential nature of court records, on falsification and dishonesty by court personnel, and on the penalty of dismissal with forfeiture of benefits and prejudice to reinstatement.