HON. JOSE S. ARCILLA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ALFREDO SABIDO, RESPONDENT.

This complaint of August
12, 1977 by Judge Jose S. Arcilla, Acting
Municipal Judge of the Municipal Court of Virac, Catanduanes, charged Municipal Clerk of Court Alfredo Sabido of the same court with:

(1)         
Violation of existing laws and regulations –
This refers to the case filed by Assistant Fiscal Eleuterio
T. Decena for Grave Coercion against Pedro San Roque (Criminal Case No. 2473) wherein the court, after
conducting the requisite preliminary investigation, issued the corresponding
warrant of arrest.  After the accused was
arrested, respondent Alfredo Sabido issued an order,
signed by him, dated March 31, 1976,
ordering the release of said accused from custody by the PC;

(2)      
Misconduct – During the hearing of Civil Case
No. 240 (Suarez v. Panti), respondent Alfredo Sabido received P200.00 in connection with said case from
defendant Editha Concepcion
Panti allegedly without any authority from the court;

(3)      
Neglect of duty – During the hearing of Criminal
Case No. 2591 (People v. Belen Santiago) the Presiding Judge discovered court
records in the custody of said clerk, such as those of People v. Mendoza,
People v. De Dios, People v. Tria,
and Lim v. Tura, as well as some law books of the
court, missing from the files;

(4)      
Conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the
service – Respondent Alfredo Sabido summoned parties
in cases pending with the Municipal Court for the collection of debts without
the sanction or authority of the Presiding Judge;

(5)      
Gross inefficiency in the performance of
official duties – Respondent Alfredo Sabido, because
of his absence and tardiness, failed to bring out the expedientes of cases on time during court hearings
causing, as a result thereof, undue delay in the termination of those cases;

(6)      
Gambling during office hours – Respondent has
been seen gambling inside the Judge’s chambers during office hours;

(7)      
Insubordination – Despite directives or written
orders of the incumbent judge, respondent failed to keep the files of the court
in order or to post the daily court calendar for the information of the lawyers
and parties, refused to update the submission of annual or monthly reports, and
failed to attend the meetings of clerks of court called by the Judge of the Court
of First Instance at Catanduanes;

(8)      
Frequent unauthorized absences and tardiness –
Absence or tardiness of respondent was noted on January 22, July 9, August 12,
August 13, August 17 and September 7, 1977, causing undue delay in the hearings
on said dates, since the court records were kept by respondent in his locked
cabinet;

(9)      
Arrogance and discourtesy in his dealings with
the Presiding Judge; and

(10)  
Physical disability due to vicious habits.

Pursuant to a Resolution of this Court, the Executive Judge of the Court of First Instance of Catanduanes, Hon. Graciano P. Gayapa, Jr., investigated the case on September 5, 8, 18
and 19, 1978.  After conducting the
investigation, said Investigating Judge submitted his findings and recommendations,
as follows:

“Respondent without authority of law issued and signed an order
releasing from custody the accused in Criminal complaint No. 273 entitled ‘People
of the Philippines
vs. Pedro San Roque‘.

“The receipt by respondent of the sum of P200.00 in civil case
No. 240 was by and upon the
authority of the plaintiff, which was in accordance with the compromise
agreement signed by the parties.

“No evidence was presented to substantiate the charge of
missing documents.  Likewise, no evidence
was presented to show that a book in legal forms ever existed at all and that
there was no court calendar for two (2) years.

“Respondent settled small money claims without any authority from
the complainant.  In accordance with Sec.
17, Rule 5 of the New Rules of Court, small claims should be settled by the
judge himself.

“Respondent gambled with some people on certain afternoons
inside the courthouse.  However, there
was no evidence presented to prove that Sabido
maintains a gambling den in his house.

“The respondent in some instances disobeyed the orders of the
Judge and failed to attend meetings called by the former CFI Judge of the Court
of First Instance of Catanduanes.

“There was no evidence presented to substantiate the charge
that court proceedings were delayed due to frequent unauthorized absences of
respondent.  However, respondent was
found late in going to the office on the occasion of the official visit of CFI
Judge Jose Nepomuceno to the Municipal Court of Virac, Catanduanes sometime in
1975.

“The matter of reading newspaper during session was not so
serious a character to have disturbed the proceedings, otherwise respondent
should have been held in contempt of court at the time the afore-mentioned act
was done.

“There was no evidence to the effect that respondent’s illness
was precipitated by his vicious habits or on account of his being addicted to
gambling.” (Memorandum for the Chief Justice, dated
December 13, 1978, of Atty. Demetrio B. Macapagal).

The
Investigating Judge consequently recommends that respondent be reprimanded for
Charges Nos. 1, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9, and exonerated with respect to Charges Nos. 2,
3, 5 and 10.

There is no question that
the approval of the bail of an accused person and the authority to order his
release is purely a judicial function. 
Thus, this Court said in a previous case that the fiscal, unlike a
judicial authority, has no power to order either the commitment or the release
on bail of persons charged with penal offenses, and the confinement of such
persons after their case had been referred to the City Fiscal was but a mere
continuation of their illegal detention by the police officers.^[1] In
releasing the accused from custody, therefore, respondent unduly usurped the
judicial prerogative of the Presiding Judge.

Respondent’s practice of summoning persons to the court for collection of debts and for settlement of small
claims without authority from the presiding judge is again a clear case of
usurpation.  Pursuant to Section 17, Rule
5 of the Revised Rules of Court, the settlement of small claims should he done
by the judge himself.

Further, the circumstances that respondent was seen gambling
inside the courthouse during office hours, had disobeyed the orders of the
judge, and had failed to attend official meetings and to perform his official
duties and obligations reflect gross irresponsibility, lack of discipline and a
patent unfitness for the position he is presently occupying.

WHEREFORE, in view of the afore-mentioned gross
misconduct, this Court hereby DISMISSES respondent Alfredo Sabido
from the service, effective upon receipt of a copy of this decision, with
forfeiture of retirement gratuity, if any.

Castro, C.J., Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo, Makasiar, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Santos,
Fernandez, and Guerrero, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Lino v.
Fugoso, L-1159, January 30, 1947, 77 Phil. 933.