JAIME C. TARAN, COMPLAINANT, vs. JUDGE JOSE S. JACINTO, JR., RESPONDENT.

Taran versus Jacinto

The Case

This is an administrative case. Jaime Taran filed a sworn letter complaint with the Court Administrator against Judge Jose Jacinto, Jr., then the acting presiding judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Lubang-Looc in Occidental Mindoro. Taran charged the judge with gross ignorance of the law and violation of human rights, arising from the handling of a criminal case for direct assault against Taran's son, Eugene. The case matters because the Supreme Court uses it to draw the line between a judge's good intentions and his duty to follow the rules: it holds a judge administratively liable not for the criminal procedure he followed, but for failing to supervise his clerk of court on official receipts and for issuing orders over the telephone.

Procedural History

The complaint was a sworn letter dated May 15, 2000, addressed to the Court Administrator. The respondent filed his comment. On April 1, 2002, Court Administrator Presbitero Velasco, Jr. submitted his Report, recommending that the matter be re-docketed as an administrative matter and that the respondent be held liable for failure to supervise his personnel closely and for issuing orders relayed over the telephone, with a fine of 5,000 pesos and a warning. The case was then resolved by the Supreme Court in its administrative jurisdiction, and the Court agreed with the findings of the Court Administrator.

Facts

Eugene Taran was one of the accused in a criminal case for direct assault upon a person in authority, pending before the sala of Judge Jacinto. The complainant alleged that the judge gave due course to the complaint even without the required Certification to File Action from the barangay chairman, conducted the preliminary examination without notice to the accused, and issued an alias warrant of arrest on April 4, 2000 without giving the accused a prior opportunity to file a counter-affidavit. He further alleged that the judge refused to accept a surety bond, demanded money from litigants, and that when the accused posted cash bail, no official receipt was issued to him.

The complainant also alleged that the judge, when outside the court, issued orders and subpoenas by telephone, which his personnel then reduced to writing and stamped "original signed." The order releasing the accused, dated April 14, 2000, bore that stamp although the judge was not in court that day.

The respondent explained that the barangay certification was in fact attached to the complaint, and that his clerk of court issued the corresponding receipt for the cash bail and attached it to the records. He admitted that, as a judge-designate who held office in Lubang-Looc only every third week of each month, he instructed court personnel to inform him promptly of matters needing immediate action so that he could act by dictating his order over the telephone, and that the release order was in fact made by telephone. He invoked fifteen years of government service and an unblemished reputation.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent judge is guilty of gross ignorance of the law and violation of human rights in giving due course to the complaint, conducting the preliminary examination, and issuing the warrant of arrest.
• Whether or not the respondent judge is liable for failing to supervise his clerk of court, who did not issue the official receipt for the cash bail to the payor.
• Whether or not the respondent judge is liable for issuing orders over the telephone.

Applicable Provisions

Supreme Court Circular Number 26-97, dated May 5, 1997, directs judges and clerks of court to compel collecting officials to comply with the Auditing and Accounting Manual, and provides in part:

To eradicate the practice of some clerks of court of retaining the original copy of the official receipt issued in acknowledgment of payment for file with the records of the case instead of issuing the same to payor, JUDGES and CLERKS OF COURT are hereby DIRECTED TO: 1) Compel their collecting officials to strictly comply with the provisions of the AUDITING AND ACCOUNTING MANUAL, Article VI, Sections 61 and 113.

The Circular bears on the second issue, because it imposes on the judge a personal duty to see that receipts are issued to the payor.

Section 113 of the Auditing and Accounting Manual, quoted within the Circular, provides:

Section 113. Issuance of official receipt. For proper accounting and control of revenues, no payment of any nature shall be received by a collecting officer without immediately issuing an official receipt in acknowledgment thereof.

This is the specific duty the clerk of court failed to perform, and which the judge failed to compel.

Section 1, Rule 36 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

Section 1. Rendition of judgments and final orders. A judgment or final order determining the merits of the case shall be in writing personally and directly prepared by the judge, stating clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based, signed by him, and filed with the clerk of court.

This governs the third issue, because it requires that orders be in writing and signed by the judge.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court agreed with the Court Administrator that the respondent cannot be held liable for gross ignorance of the law or procedure and violation of human rights. The documentary evidence showed that the barangay certification supported the complaint and that the cash bond was properly receipted. Preliminary examination is not an essential part of due process and may be conducted in the presence or absence of the accused, and there is no right to preliminary investigation in cases triable by the inferior courts. The warrant was served by law enforcement agents, and the allegations of irregularities in its service rested on mere conjecture. The claims of refusal of surety bond and demands for money were unsupported by convincing proof, since the burden of proof rests on the complainant.

On the second issue, the Court held the respondent liable. The clerk of court did not issue the receipt to the payor but attached the original to the records, and the respondent should have instructed the clerk to comply with Circular Number 26-97. Judges are required to compel their collecting officials to promptly issue official receipts, and it is their duty to see that these functions are performed faithfully by their clerks of court.

On the third issue, the Court held the respondent liable as well. Municipal Circuit Trial Courts are courts of record, and their proceedings must be in writing. The Court quoted its ruling in Echaus versus Court of Appeals:

Time-honored and of constant observance is the principle that no judgment or order, whether final or interlocutory, has juridical existence until and unless it is set down in writing, signed, and promulgated.

The Court thus found that the respondent violated Circular Number 26-97 and Section 1, Rule 36 on the rendition of orders, stressing that a judge should always be imbued with a high sense of duty and responsibility and should adhere to the highest standards of public accountability.

Doctrine

A judge is administratively liable for lapses in the supervision of court personnel that result in non-compliance with Supreme Court circulars. Under Circular Number 26-97, judges must compel their clerks of court to issue official receipts to the payor for all monies received, and the original receipt must not be retained for the records in place of issuance to the payor.

Municipal Circuit Trial Courts are courts of record. No judgment or order, whether final or interlocutory, has juridical existence until it is set down in writing, signed by the judge, and filed with the clerk of court. An order dictated over the telephone, even if later reduced to writing by personnel, is not validly rendered.

Violation of Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars is a less serious offense under the Revised Rules of Court, punishable by suspension or by a fine of more than 10,000 pesos but not exceeding 20,000 pesos.

Disposition

The Court found Judge Jose Jacinto, Jr. guilty of violation of Circular Number 26-97 and Section 1, Rule 36, fined him 11,000 pesos, and warned that a repetition of the same or similar act would be dealt with more severely.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a judge may be faulted not for what he intended but for what he failed to supervise, and no order has juridical existence until it is written, signed, and filed. Examiners use this case to test the duty of judges over their clerks of court on official receipts, and the rule that courts of record cannot issue orders by telephone.