DISCREET INVESTIGATION REPORT RELATIVE TO THE ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT AGAINST PRESIDING JUDGE RENANTE N. BACOLOD, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, MANDAON-BALUD, MANDAON, MASBATE

Discreet Investigation Report versus Judge Bacolod

The Case

This is an administrative case against Judge Renante N. Bacolod, Presiding Judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Mandaon-Balud, Mandaon, Masbate. It began with an anonymous complaint, written in Tagalog and dated August 24, 2015, charging him with immorality, maintaining an irregular calendar of court hearings and trials, corrupt practices, drug involvement, and grave misconduct for solemnizing marriages outside his jurisdiction. The case matters because it gathers in one decision the standards of judicial conduct, the mandatory rules on court session hours, the concept of habitual absenteeism, and the consequences of falsifying certificates of service — all recurring subjects in the administrative law portion of the Bar.

Procedural History

The anonymous complaint was filed before the Office of the Court Administrator. The Office referred it to Executive Judge Manuel L. Sese of the Regional Trial Court of Masbate City for a discreet investigation and report. Judge Sese conducted the investigation and submitted his report. The Chief of the Legal Office of the Office of the Court Administrator then issued a memorandum recommending that the complaint be closed and terminated for lack of substantial evidence on the charges of immorality, corrupt practices, and drug peddling, but that Judge Bacolod be sternly warned to be more circumspect in the performance of his duties and to strictly comply with the rules on office hours. The Office of the Court Administrator itself later submitted its own report and recommendation, and the matter was re-docketed as a regular administrative matter and resolved by the Supreme Court in its administrative jurisdiction.

Facts

The complainant, a resident of Mandaon, Masbate, alleged that Judge Bacolod, though married, was cohabiting with a woman other than his legal wife; that he went to court only on Mondays, left by noon, and returned only the following Monday, so that hearings were scheduled only on Mondays and yet he still missed some; that he engaged in corrupt practices through a personal assistant who received money from litigants; that he had been a drug user and pusher before his appointment; and that he solemnized marriages outside his jurisdiction and accepted fees for doing so.

Judge Sese's investigation found that Judge Bacolod was separated from his legal wife, who was residing abroad, and was cohabiting with another woman with whom he had a common child without the benefit of marriage. It found that he held only two hearing days every month, on the morning of the third and fourth Mondays, that hearings were often cancelled for unknown reasons, and that he left right after his hearings and did not report to court for the rest of the week. It found no direct evidence of corrupt practices or drug involvement, though it noted some palpably erroneous orders. It also found that he had solemnized a marriage that the local civil registrar refused to register, believing he had no authority to solemnize marriages outside Mandaon.

In his comment, Judge Bacolod admitted he was separated in fact from his legal wife, who was married to another man abroad, and said he indicated "separated" as his civil status in all pertinent papers. He explained that hearings were set on the third and fourth Mondays to harmonize with the calendars of lawyers appearing in other courts, that cancellations were due to absent counsel, prosecutors, or public lawyers, his own indisposition or official business, or the monthly disposal period, and that the court building was under repair so that from April 2015 to June 2016 sessions were held in the ABC Session Hall, available only in the morning. He also cited inhibited cases in other court stations. He denied drug use and selling, and said he could not recall officiating marriages outside his jurisdiction, having collected only 300 pesos in court fees.

Issues

• Whether or not Judge Bacolod is administratively liable for immorality for cohabiting with a woman other than his legal wife.
• Whether or not Judge Bacolod is administratively liable for maintaining an irregular calendar of court hearings and for habitual absenteeism, including falsification of his certificates of service.
• Whether or not Judge Bacolod is administratively liable for corrupt practices, drug involvement, and grave misconduct for solemnizing marriages outside his jurisdiction.
• Whether or not the penalty of dismissal from the service with forfeiture of retirement benefits and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in government service is proper.

Applicable Provisions

Administrative Circular No. 3-99, dated January 15, 1999, fixes the session hours of all trial courts, and provides:

All session hours of the Regional Trial Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall be from 8:30 A.M. to noon and from 2:00 P.M. to 4:30 P.M. from Monday to Friday.

This is the standard Judge Bacolod failed to meet by holding hearings only twice a month.

Administrative Circular No. 14-2002 defines habitual absenteeism, and provides:

An employee is considered habitually absent if the employee incurred unauthorized absences exceeding the 2.5 days allowed per month for three (3) months in a semester or at least three (3) consecutive months during the year.

This is the test the Court applied to Judge Bacolod's admitted practice of reporting to court only twice a month.

Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 2-99, as explained in the Court's discussion of the penalty, provides:

Absenteeism and tardiness even if such is not habitual or frequent shall be dealt with severely, and any falsification of daily time records to cover up for such absenteeism or tardiness shall constitute gross dishonesty or serious misconduct.

This is the basis for treating the falsified certificates of service as a grave offense carrying the extreme penalty.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court found Judge Bacolod guilty of immorality. He did not deny cohabiting with a woman other than his legal wife; he admitted being separated in fact and called their situation one of being equally at fault, which impliedly admitted the cohabitation. Worse, he made false representations in official records, indicating "separated" as his civil status when his marriage still subsisted, there being no judicial declaration of nullity or annulment. The Court defined immorality as not limited to sexual matters but including conduct inconsistent with rectitude, or indicative of corruption, indecency, depravity, and dissoluteness, or willful, flagrant, or shameless conduct showing moral indifference to the opinions of respectable members of the community. Judges must be the embodiment of competence, integrity, and independence, and their private as well as official conduct must be free from all appearances of impropriety.

On the second issue, the Court found him guilty of maintaining an irregular calendar of court hearings and of habitual absenteeism with falsification of official documents. His excuse that lawyers' schedules complemented only twice a month was not persuasive; he should have warned the lawyers against delaying justice rather than deciding for himself to violate the mandated session hours. The unavailability of the ABC Session Hall for afternoon sessions did not excuse him, since he could have asked the Court or the Office of the Court Administrator for a temporary venue and still failed to use the five morning sessions available each week. His inhibited cases in other stations covered April and June 2009, more than five years before the complaint. On habitual absenteeism, the Court noted that the period from April 2015 to June 2016 covers at least 15 months, well beyond the threshold of the circular. The certification of the Employees' Leave Division showed only 17 and one-half days of approved leave for that entire period, which led the Court to conclude that he made untruthful statements in his certificates of service, and it held:

A judge's submission of false certificates of service seriously undermines and reflects on the honesty and integrity expected of an officer of the court. This is so because a certificate of service is not merely a means to one's paycheck but is an instrument by which the Court can fulfill the constitutional mandate of the people's right to a speedy disposition of cases.

On the third issue, the Court acquitted him of corrupt practices, drug involvement, and grave misconduct for solemnizing marriages outside his jurisdiction, for lack of substantial evidence. In administrative cases the burden rests on the complainant, and the evidence needed is substantial evidence, which is that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. For grave offenses, the evidence should be competent and derived from direct knowledge; reliance on mere allegations, conjectures, and suppositions will leave a complaint with no leg to stand on. Even his silence on the marriage charge could not be deemed an admission absent substantial evidence.

On the fourth issue, the Court imposed the extreme penalty of dismissal from the service with forfeiture of retirement benefits except accrued leave credits, and perpetual disqualification for reemployment in government service, dishonesty being in the nature of a grave offense.

Doctrine

First, immorality as a ground for administrative liability is not confined to sexual matters; it includes conduct inconsistent with rectitude or indicative of corruption, indecency, depravity, and dissoluteness, and a married judge who cohabits with another woman and misrepresents his civil status in official records is guilty of it.

Second, the session hours fixed by Administrative Circular No. 3-99 are mandatory, and a judge who holds hearings only twice a month violates them and delays the administration of justice.

Third, habitual absenteeism is measured by Administrative Circular No. 14-2002: unauthorized absences exceeding two and one-half days allowed per month for three months in a semester or at least three consecutive months during the year.

Fourth, falsification of certificates of service is gross dishonesty or serious misconduct under Administrative Circular No. 2-99, carrying dismissal, forfeiture of retirement benefits except accrued leave credits, and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in government service.

Fifth, in administrative cases the burden of proof rests on the complainant, and the standard is substantial evidence; for grave offenses the evidence must be competent and derived from direct knowledge.

Disposition

The Court found Judge Bacolod guilty of immorality, of maintaining an irregular calendar of court hearings, and of habitual absenteeism with falsification of official documents, dismissed the charges of corrupt practices, drug involvement, and solemnizing marriages outside his jurisdiction for lack of substantial evidence, and imposed dismissal from the service with forfeiture of retirement benefits except accrued leave credits and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in government service.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a judge's private and official conduct must at all times be free from all appearances of impropriety, and false certificates of service are gross dishonesty punishable by dismissal. Examiners use this case for the definition of immorality, the mandatory court session hours, the habitual absenteeism standard, and the substantial evidence requirement in administrative complaints against judges.