RE: JOINT REPORT DATED 23 OCTOBER 2023 ON ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT AGAINST HON. JOSEPHINE G. BAUTISTA-NICHOLS, PRESIDING JUDGE, 4TH MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, LUMBAN-KALAYAAN, LU…

Bautista-Nichols versus Anonymous Complaint

The Case

This is an administrative case against Judge Josephine Bautista-Nichols, Presiding Judge of the Fourth Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Lumban-Kalayaan, Laguna. It began as an anonymous complaint sent by electronic mail to the Office of the Chief Justice, and it matters for two reasons: it shows how the Supreme Court treats a judge who leaves cases undecided long past the reglementary period, and it fixes the rules on conducting videoconferencing hearings from home, outside one's judicial region, and without the judicial robe.

Procedural History

The anonymous complaint was referred by the Office of the Chief Justice to the Office of the Court Administrator, which directed a judicial audit. Two audit teams were fielded: one at the municipal circuit trial court in Lumban-Kalayaan, Laguna, and another in Santa Maria, Bulacan, from the fifteenth to the nineteenth of August 2023. The Office of the Court Administrator then submitted a memorandum to the Chief Justice recommending that the complaint be docketed as a regular administrative complaint and that the judge be directed to comment and explain. After the judge, the acting clerk of court, and the clerk in charge submitted their explanations, the Office of the Court Administrator recommended in a memorandum dated the fourteenth of February 2024 that the complaint be docketed against the judge for undue delay in rendering decisions, violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and violation of reasonable office rules on video conferencing hearings, and that the deficiency findings against the two court employees be considered complied with and closed. The case reached the Supreme Court as an administrative matter, and the Court adopted the findings and conclusions of the Office of the Court Administrator with modifications.

Facts

An anonymous complainant using the name Cat Pusa alleged two things: that Judge Bautista-Nichols abused her judicial position to influence the outcomes of land-related cases in Santa Maria, Bulacan, and that she frequently conducted hearings online instead of in person. The parallel investigation in Bulacan found the land-grabbing allegation baseless; the barangay officials there did not even know she was a judge.

The audit of the Lumban-Kalayaan court, however, uncovered twenty cases already submitted for decision but still pending beyond the reglementary period, with delays ranging from one to four years. The records of one civil case for quieting of title were not in court because they were still with the judge for decision writing. The audit also confirmed that on the sixth of July 2023 the judge presided over a videoconferencing hearing while at her residence in Santa Maria, Bulacan, outside her judicial region, and that on the seventeenth of August 2023 the audit team personally observed her conducting an online hearing from her house without wearing her judicial robe. The court had also shifted to Google Meet without coordinating with the Management Information Systems Office, so no recordings were made. Other lapses were noted: unpaginated records, unsigned certificates of arraignment, an unupdated civil docket book, and no judgment book.

In her explanation, the judge admitted possessing the records of the quieting of title case and said she had inadvertently forgotten it because of too much work; she had since returned the records with a decision. She admitted overlooking the other cases and blamed poor health, attaching a medical certificate for a vocal cord cyst. She admitted conducting video hearings outside her judicial region without permission but denied removing her judicial robe. The acting clerk of court and the clerk in charge apologized and explained that they had merely continued the practices of the deceased clerk of court.

Issues

• Whether or not Judge Bautista-Nichols should be held administratively liable for undue delay in rendering decisions, violation of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, and violation of reasonable office rules in the conduct of video conference hearings.
• Whether or not the acting clerk of court should be held administratively liable for failure to keep and maintain a judgment book under Rule 136, Section 9 of the Rules of Court and for failure to sign the certificates of arraignment.
• Whether or not the clerk in charge should be held administratively liable for failure to update the civil docket book.

Applicable Provisions

The 1987 Constitution mandates the periods for deciding cases:

All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must be decided or resolved within twenty-four months from date of submission for the Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower collegiate courts, and three months for all other lower courts.

This fixes the three-month period that the judge violated in the subject cases.

Canon 6, Section 5 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary provides:

Judges shall perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness.

This is the ethical standard breached by the delay.

OCA Circular No. 43-2022 governs video conferencing hearings from home:

No videoconferencing hearing may be conducted by a Judge in a location outside of his/her court's judicial region, unless authorized by the Court or the OCA in further pursuit of the efficient administration of justice.

The judge admitted presiding over hearings from Bulacan, outside her region, without prior permission, so this circular was clearly violated.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held the judge liable. It stressed that no position demands greater moral righteousness than a judicial office, and that while it commiserated with her poor health, that circumstance did not justify the negligence. She could easily have asked the Court, through the Office of the Court Administrator, for extensions of time, but did not, showing indifference to the prescriptive periods. Under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended, undue delay is no longer a separate charge but is subsumed under simple or gross neglect of duty. Given the sheer number of cases and delays of one to four years, the Court found her guilty of three counts of gross neglect of duty: eight criminal cases not resolved within thirty calendar days from the court's action on the last offer of evidence, eleven civil cases not resolved within thirty days from receipt of the mediator's or judicial dispute resolution report, and one small claims case not resolved within twenty-four hours from termination of the hearing. The Court also found her guilty of two counts of the less serious charge of violation of Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars: conducting video hearings outside her judicial region, and failing to wear her judicial robe. On the robe, the Court held that a judge's medical condition, absent written permission, does not exempt her from Administrative Circular No. 25, and that her general denial was inherently weak against the audit team's personal observation.

On the second and third issues, the Court agreed with the Office of the Court Administrator that the deficiency findings against the acting clerk of court and the clerk in charge were considered complied with, and the matter was closed and terminated, with a stern warning that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.

Doctrine

A judge must decide cases within three months from submission, and failure to do so, absent a request for extension, constitutes gross neglect of duty when the delay is long and the cases are many. Undue delay in rendering a decision or order is no longer a distinct administrative charge under Rule 140, as amended; it is subsumed under simple or gross neglect of duty. A judge may not conduct a videoconferencing hearing from a location outside her judicial region without prior authorization from the Court or the Office of the Court Administrator, and she must wear the judicial robe during official proceedings unless the Court grants written permission. A general denial is inherently weak, especially when placed against the positive observation of an investigating team.

Disposition

The Court found Judge Bautista-Nichols guilty of three counts of gross neglect of duty and two counts of violation of Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars, and imposed the corresponding penalties, while closing and terminating the matter against the two court employees with a stern warning.

Remember This

Memorize this line: delay in deciding cases is no longer a separate charge but gross neglect of duty, and a judge may not hold video hearings outside her judicial region or without her robe without written authority. Examiners use this case to test Rule 140 as amended, the three-month rule, and the rules on videoconferencing hearings under OCA Circular No. 43-2022.