DOMINADOR C. BALDOZA, COMPLAINANT, VS. HON. JUDGE RODOLFO B. DIMAANO, RESPONDENT.

Baldoza versus Dimaano

The Case

This is an administrative complaint filed directly with the Supreme Court by Dominador Baldoza, the Municipal Secretary of Taal, Batangas, against Judge Rodolfo Dimaano, the Municipal Judge of the same town. The complainant charges the respondent with abuse of authority for refusing to allow employees of the Municipal Mayor to examine the criminal docket records of the Municipal Court, which they needed to prepare a report on peace and order conditions in the municipality. The case matters because it is the Court's classic statement on the people's right of access to public records, now anchored on the constitutional right to information on matters of public concern, and on the limits of a custodian's discretion to regulate, but not prohibit, that access.

Procedural History

The complaint was a verified letter-complaint dated September 9, 1975, filed directly with the Supreme Court, which is why it is an original administrative proceeding rather than an appeal. The Court referred the matter to Judge Francisco Mat. Riodique for investigation and report. At the preliminary hearing on October 16, 1975, Mayor Corazon Cañiza moved to dismiss the complaint to preserve harmony among municipal officers; the Investigating Judge denied the motion, but after formal investigation he recommended the exoneration of the respondent. The Supreme Court then evaluated the recommendation and rendered its own ruling, dismissing the case against the respondent.

Facts

The Municipal Secretary of Taal, Batangas, complained that Judge Dimaano refused to let employees of the Municipal Mayor examine the criminal docket records of the Municipal Court. The employees needed the records to secure data for their contemplated report on the peace and order conditions of the municipality.

In his answer, the respondent denied any intention to refuse access. He conceded that court records are public documents open to inspection not only by the parties directly involved but also by other persons with a legitimate interest, but maintained that inspection is always subject to reasonable regulation as to who, when, where, and how the records may be inspected. He invoked the court's power to prevent improper use of its records, noting that some cases still bore the stigma of partisan politics, that the padlocks of the court's door had recently been tampered with, and that a request of such magnitude should not be granted without adequate deliberation and upon advisement, so that authority should first be secured from the Supreme Court through the Executive Judge.

After formal investigation, the Investigating Judge found no abuse of authority. The respondent had in fact allowed the complainant to open and view the docket books under certain conditions and under his control and supervision, and the complainant admitted that he was aware of those rules and conditions and was amenable to them. The Investigating Judge recommended exoneration and warned the complainant to be more cautious in filing administrative charges against members of the judiciary.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent Municipal Judge committed abuse of authority in regulating the manner by which the complainant's office could examine the criminal docket records of his court.
• Whether or not the right of the people to access public records obliges a custodian of records to permit inspection, and how far his discretion extends in regulating that access.

Applicable Provisions

The decision rests on the constitutional right to information under the New Constitution, which the Court cites as Article Four, Section Six. That provision reads:

The people are entitled to information on matters of public concern and thus are expressly granted access to official records, as well as documents of official acts, or transactions, or decisions, subject to such limitations imposed by law.

This provision is the foundation of the ruling: access to official records is a constitutional right, and restrictions upon it must be imposed by law, not by the mere preference of the custodian.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court found that the respondent did not act arbitrarily. As the Investigating Judge found, the respondent allowed the complainant to open and view the docket books under certain conditions and under his command and supervision, and it was not shown that those rules and conditions were unreasonable. There was therefore no abuse of authority to speak of.

On the second issue, the Court affirmed the right of access while recognizing the custodian's power of reasonable regulation. The access to public records is predicated on the right of the people to acquire information on matters of public concern, and in a democracy the public has a legitimate interest in matters of social and political significance. Quoting its earlier ruling in Sabido versus Ozaeta, the Court explained the limits of the custodian's discretion:

Except, perhaps, when it is clear that the purpose of the examination is unlawful, or sheer, idle curiosity, we do not believe it is the duty under the law of registration officers to concern themselves with the motives, reasons, and objects of the person seeking access to the records.

The Court likewise adopted the rule that while the custodian has discretion as to the manner in which persons desiring to inspect, examine, or copy the records may exercise their rights, such power does not carry with it authority to prohibit. The incorporation of the right in the Constitution is a recognition of the fundamental role of free exchange of information in a democracy, for there can be no realistic perception by the public of the nation's problems, nor meaningful democratic decision-making, if the people are denied access to information of general interest. Restrictions on access to certain records may be imposed by law, as where access restrictions were permitted to control civil insurrection upon a showing of immediate and impending danger, but no such justification existed here.

Doctrine

Access to public records is a constitutional right, predicated on the people's entitlement to information on matters of public concern. The custodian of records has discretion over the manner of inspection, but that power does not carry with it authority to prohibit inspection. The custodian may regulate who, when, where, and how records are inspected, and may refuse access where the purpose is clearly unlawful or sheer, idle curiosity, but he may not concern himself with the motives, reasons, and objects of the person seeking access. Restrictions on access must be imposed by law, not by the unilateral policy of the official in custody.

Disposition

The case against the respondent was dismissed; the complaint for abuse of authority did not prosper.

Remember This

The line to memorize is that the custodian's power is to regulate, not to prohibit, access to public records. Examiners use this case to test the constitutional right to information and the standard for abuse of authority by a public officer who controls official records.