ANACLITO CARANDANG, COMPLAINANT, VS. REMEDIOS BASE, CLERK OF COURT, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, BROOKE’S POINT, PALAWAN, RESPONDENT.

Carandang versus Base

The Case

This is an administrative case in which Anaclito Carandang charged Remedios Base, the Clerk of Court of the Municipal Trial Court of Brooke's Point, Palawan, with gross and grave misconduct in office and with violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Carandang alleged that the respondent demanded money from his wife in exchange for facilitating the dismissal of a criminal case against him. The case matters for two reasons. First, it shows how the Supreme Court weighs conflicting and inconsistent testimony in an administrative complaint against a court employee. Second, and more importantly for the Bar, it draws a bright line between judicial and administrative functions, holding that a clerk of court who issues a commitment order usurps a power that belongs only to the judge.

Procedural History

The complaint was filed with the Supreme Court and also with the Office of the Ombudsman, which referred the matter to the Court Administrator. Acting on the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator, the Supreme Court referred the complaint to Judge Lydia Pe-Abiog of the Municipal Trial Court of Narra, Palawan for investigation, report, and recommendation. The investigating judge recommended dismissal, finding the extortion charge unproven and noting inconsistencies in the complainants' testimony. The Office of the Court Administrator agreed that the extortion and anti-graft charges should be dismissed, but recommended that the respondent be reprimanded for arrogating to herself the authority to exercise judicial direction. The Supreme Court then required the parties to manifest whether they were willing to submit the case for decision on the pleadings and records already filed. The respondent complied; the complainant did not. The Court resolved the case in due course.

Facts

In a sworn statement, Carandang claimed that on April 12, 2003, his wife Dioscora went to the respondent's office after being summoned. There, according to the complaint, the respondent demanded 3,600 pesos to facilitate the dismissal of the criminal case for illegal possession of drug paraphernalia in which Carandang was one of the accused. When his wife said she could not afford that amount, the demand was reduced to 1,600 pesos, and finally to 500 pesos, which his wife handed over in the presence of a neighbor.

It turned out that the criminal case had already been dismissed more than a year earlier, by order of Judge Perfecto Pe of the Regional Trial Court of Puerto Princesa City dated December 6, 2001. Carandang further alleged that despite that dismissal he was arrested in November 2002 and released in December 2002, and arrested again in March 2003 at the instance of the respondent and another person.

The respondent denied the charges. She alleged that April 12, 2003 was a Saturday, when the Municipal Trial Court held no session, and that she regularly left Brooke's Point on Fridays to join her family in Puerto Princesa City, about 196 kilometers away. She denied knowledge of the prior dismissal, noting that the issuing court furnished copies of its order only to the Provincial Prosecutor and to a police officer, not to her court. She also denied instigating any arrest, explaining that Carandang was arrested on the strength of a standing warrant and merely presented to her court for the issuance of a commitment order, which she described as a ministerial duty.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent is guilty of gross and grave misconduct in office for allegedly demanding money to facilitate the dismissal of a criminal case.
• Whether or not the respondent violated the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
• Whether or not the respondent is administratively liable for issuing a commitment order, an act that falls within the judicial function of the judge.

Applicable Provisions

Section 9, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides:

If the judge still finds no probable cause despite the additional evidence, he shall, within ten (10) days from its submission or expiration of said period, dismiss the case. When he finds probable cause, he shall issue a warrant of arrest, or a commitment order if the accused had already been arrested, and hold him for trial.

This provision is decisive because it lodges the power to issue a commitment order in the judge, not in the clerk of court, and the respondent exercised that power herself.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court dismissed the charge of gross and grave misconduct. The extortion was never proven; the complainants' affidavits were self-serving, and they failed to pursue their grievance when given the opportunity. Their accounts were also inconsistent as to the day of the alleged incident, which they variously placed on a Saturday, a Friday, and a Wednesday. The Court likewise accepted that the respondent could not have known of the prior dismissal, since her court was never furnished a copy of the order. It was highly improbable, too, that she would extort money in exchange for the non-arrest of a man who was already in detention.

On the second issue, the Court dismissed the charge of violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for the same reason: the predicate act of extortion was not established.

On the third issue, however, the Court found the respondent liable. By issuing a commitment order, she arrogated to herself a judicial function. As the Court put it, the Clerk of Court, unlike a judicial authority, has no power to order either the commitment or the release on bail of persons charged with penal offenses. The Court characterized her act as simple misconduct, an unlawful behavior that transgresses the established rules of conduct for public officers. Because she had been previously fined for simple neglect of duty, and because simple misconduct is a less grave offense under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, the Court chose a fine over suspension to prevent any undue adverse effect on public service.

Doctrine

A clerk of court has no power to order the commitment or the release on bail of a person charged with a penal offense. That power belongs to the judge alone under Section 9, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. A clerk may issue an order only upon the authority of the judge, and must never make it appear that the judge signed an order when the judge did not. Issuing a commitment order on one's own authority is simple misconduct, a less grave offense under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. Extortion charges against a court employee must rest on more than self-serving and inconsistent affidavits; where the evidence is unproven, the administrative charge is dismissed.

Disposition

The Court found Remedios Base guilty of simple misconduct and fined her an amount equivalent to her two months' salary, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar act would be dealt with more severely; the charges of grave misconduct and violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act were dismissed.

Remember This

Memorize the line: the clerk of court may issue an order only upon the authority of the judge, and may never make it appear that the judge signed an order when the judge did not. Examiners use this case to test the boundary between judicial and administrative functions, and to illustrate simple misconduct as a less grave offense under the civil service rules.