Inciong v. Mariano de Guia
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Attorney Ceferino Inciong charged respondent Judge Leticia S. Mariano de Guia with "Inducing Court Employees to Falsify Court Record." The charge stemmed from an incident where respondent Judge allegedly requested Deputy Sheriff Nemesio G. Dalisay and Staff Assistant Rufina A. Pinili to affix their initials on the information in Criminal Case No. 2589, "People of the Philippines vs. Ruben Rodriguez, et al.," claiming they had failed to sign it as part of the raffle. The affiants later discovered that the case was not among those raffled on the specified date. They also stated that the respondent Judge expressed interest in personally handling the case due to an alleged understanding with the Executive Judge. Procedural History: The Office of the Court Administrator found a prima facie case. The complaint was initially referred to Associate Justice Manuel C. Herrera for investigation, who recommended dismissal based on the complainant's oral withdrawal and the respondent Judge's reappointment. However, the Supreme Court, considering the unexplained withdrawal and the lack of bearing of the reappointment on the merits, referred the case for investigation de novo to Associate Justice Justo P. Torres, Jr. The Petition: The complainant, Attorney Ceferino Inciong, filed the administrative complaint against respondent Judge Mariano de Guia.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Judge induced court employees to falsify court records. Whether respondent Judge committed misconduct and irregularities in office. Whether the common practice of assigning cases without raffle in Balayan excuses the violation of Supreme Court Circulars.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Judge Leticia S. Mariano de Guia guilty of misconduct and irregularities in office. She was ordered to pay a FINE equivalent to her three (3) months' pay, with a stern WARNING against repetition of the offense. The Court Administrator was also instructed to investigate adherence to Circular No. 7 in the Regional Trial Court of Balayan, Batangas.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether respondent Judge induced court employees to falsify court records: The Court found the evidence overwhelming that no raffle was conducted on November 22, 1984, for Criminal Case No. 2589. Witnesses, including the Executive Judge and the OIC of the Office of the Clerk of Court, testified that the case was never included in the raffle. Even a witness presented by the respondent Judge admitted that the raffle of the case was not conducted according to the rules. The Investigating Justice concluded that the evidence credibly established the charge of "INDUCING COURT EMPLOYEES TO FALSIFY COURT RECORD." The respondent Judge's actions created the appearance that persons participated in a proceeding when they did not. On Whether respondent Judge committed misconduct and irregularities in office: The Court agreed with the findings of the Investigating Justice that the respondent Judge induced the court employees to make it appear that the Ruben Rodriguez case had been raffled to her sala when it had not. This constituted a violation of Supreme Court Circular No. 7 dated September 23, 1974, as amended. The respondent Judge was unable to account for the case winding up in her sala without a proper raffle. The Court noted that the behavior of the respondent Judge created substantial suspicion that she may have been moved by corrupt motives in taking over the case and acquitting the accused, although this remained a suspicion. On Whether the common practice of assigning cases without raffle in Balayan excuses the violation of Supreme Court Circulars: The Court held that even if the assignment of cases without raffle was a common practice in Balayan, such practice does not excuse the violation of Supreme Court Circulars. The respondent Judge admitted that assignment of cases without raffle was common, which violates Supreme Court Circular No. 7 of 1974, as amended by Circulars No. 3 of 1975 and No. 20 of 1979. The Court emphasized that "practice is not the law" and cited Article 7 of the New Civil Code, stating that "Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their violation or non-observance shall not be excused by disuse, or customs or practice to the contrary." Therefore, the respondent Judge could not disregard the Supreme Court Circulars.
Main Doctrine
A judge who induces court employees to falsify court records, making it appear that a case was raffled when it was not, is guilty of misconduct and irregularities in office, even if the practice of assigning cases without raffle is common in the station. Such practice does not excuse the violation of Supreme Court Circulars.