OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE RICARDO P. LIWANAG OF THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, SAN JOSE DEL MONTE CITY, BULACAN; CLERK OF COURT J. ROGELIO …

Office of the Court Administrator versus Liwanag

The Case

This is an administrative complaint against Judge Ricardo Liwanag, Clerk of Court Rogelio Montero the Third, and Court Interpreter Ma. Corazon Española of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of San Jose del Monte City, Bulacan. It began not with a private grievance but with a judicial audit and physical inventory of cases conducted by a team from the Office of the Court Administrator, which uncovered disorder in the docket books, missing exhibits, and a failure to submit required reports. The case matters because it is the Court's own statement of the standard of accountability it demands from every person in the judiciary, from the lowest clerk to the highest judge, and because it fixes the administrative offenses and penalties for gross neglect of duty, grave misconduct, and inefficiency in the public service.

Procedural History

The audit team submitted its report in June 2002. The Supreme Court, through its Third Division, treated that report as a regular administrative complaint, placed all three respondents under preventive suspension, and referred the matter to Executive Judge Oscar Herrera of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos City for investigation, report, and recommendation. When Judge Herrera was replaced, the complaint was referred to Judge Guillermo Agloro, who conducted the investigation and submitted his report in December 2003. The case was then resolved by the Supreme Court en banc as an original administrative matter, in a decision issued in February 2006.

Facts

In early 2002, an audit team from the Office of the Court Administrator conducted a judicial audit of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of San Jose del Monte City. The team found that the court had not submitted its required monthly reports and semestral inventory of cases since the year 2000. Pending cases were mixed with dismissed, decided, and archived cases. Docket books were not updated, and the exhibits were simply placed in one corner of the room, unprotected. The clerk of court, Rogelio Montero the Third, did not even know the status of the cases when asked, and had not defined the duties of his staff.

The team also found that exhibits consisting of firearms, ammunition, and video karera machines were missing from the court files. Only after more than five days of insistent requests did Montero partially account for the firearms. The audit further revealed that several criminal cases had been dismissed on the basis of apparently forged documents of desistance, and that cash bonds were released to persons other than the accused.

During the investigation, Española, who had served as officer-in-charge while Montero was on study leave, blamed the failure to file reports on another employee, and explained her absence during the audit by saying she had taken leave to attend to her own administrative case. Judge Agloro found her explanations untenable and found Montero's failure to safeguard the exhibits a betrayal of his duty. Judge Liwanag never appeared during the investigation. The Court noted that Judge Liwanag had already been dismissed from the service and disbarred in a separate per curiam decision, rendering the complaint against him moot.

Issues

• Whether or not Clerk of Court Rogelio Montero the Third is administratively liable for gross neglect of duty and grave misconduct for failing to submit the required monthly reports and semestral inventories and for failing to safeguard the exhibits in his custody.
• Whether or not Court Interpreter Ma. Corazon Española is administratively liable for inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties for failing to comply with the reportorial requirements of the court while she was officer-in-charge.
• Whether or not the administrative complaint against Judge Ricardo Liwanag is mooted by his prior dismissal from the service and disbarment.

Applicable Provisions

Section 7 of Rule 136 of the Rules of Court provides:

Sec. 7. Safekeeping of property — The clerk of court shall safely keep all records, papers, files, exhibits and public property committed to his charge, including the library of the court, and the seals and furniture belonging to his office.

This is the provision Montero violated when he failed to keep the exhibits safely and allowed them to leave the court's custody.

Section 52 of Rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service classifies the offenses. Under subsection A, paragraph 2, gross neglect of duty is a grave offense, and under paragraph 3, grave misconduct is likewise a grave offense, both punishable by dismissal from the service. Under subsection A, paragraph 16, inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties is a grave offense punishable, on first offense, by suspension of six months and one day to one year.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court found Montero guilty of gross negligence and grave misconduct. He failed to submit the required monthly reports and semestral docket inventories, and he betrayed the trust reposed in him to safeguard the exhibits in his custody. The Court held that he had no right to remove the exhibits outside the court's premises, nor to allow others to appropriate them. It declared that he is a misfit in the judiciary and should not be allowed to stay in the service a minute longer.

On the second issue, the Court found Española guilty of inefficiency and incompetence. From the time she assumed the position of officer-in-charge, it became her duty to ensure that the court complied with its reportorial requirements, and the total absence of any effort on her part illustrated her inefficiency and utter lack of competence.

On the third issue, the Court held that the complaint against Judge Liwanag had been rendered moot by his prior dismissal from the service with forfeiture of benefits and his disbarment. The need for further investigation into the anomalous release of cash bonds was likewise mooted by the dismissal of Liwanag and Montero.

Doctrine

Every official and employee in the judiciary bears a heavy burden of public accountability, and any impression of impropriety, misdeed, or negligence in the performance of official functions must be avoided. A clerk of court who fails to submit the required monthly reports and semestral inventories, and who fails to safely keep the exhibits committed to his charge under Section 7 of Rule 136, is guilty of gross neglect of duty and grave misconduct, punishable by dismissal. An officer-in-charge who makes no effort to comply with the court's reportorial requirements is guilty of inefficiency and incompetence, punishable by suspension. Once a respondent has been dismissed from the service and disbarred in a prior administrative case, a subsequent complaint against him is moot.

Disposition

Montero was dismissed from the service with prejudice to re-employment in any government agency and with forfeiture of all retirement benefits except accrued leave credits, while Española was suspended for six months with a warning, and the complaint against Judge Liwanag was declared moot.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that the clerk of court is the custodian of the records and exhibits of the court, and failure to keep them safely is grave misconduct punishable by dismissal. Examiners like to use this case to test the administrative liability of court personnel for neglect of reportorial duties and the safekeeping of evidence.