Taran v. Jacinto, Jr.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Jaime C. Taran charged respondent Judge Jose S. Jacinto, Jr. with gross ignorance of the law and violation of human rights. Complainant alleged that the respondent judge issued an alias warrant of arrest against his son, Eugene Taran, without the required Certification to File Action from the Barangay Chairman and without prior notice to the accused. It was also alleged that the respondent judge refused to accept surety bond, demanded money from litigants, and failed to issue an official receipt for cash bail posted by the accused. Furthermore, the respondent judge allegedly issued orders and subpoenas by phone, which were then reduced to writing and stamped "original signed" by his personnel, even when the judge was not present. Procedural History: The Court Administrator recommended that the case be re-docketed as an administrative matter and that the respondent judge be held liable for failure to supervise his personnel and for issuing orders relayed over the telephone. The Court Administrator recommended a fine of P5,000.00 with a warning. The Petition: The complainant charged the respondent judge with gross ignorance of the law and violation of human rights.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed gross ignorance of the law and violation of human rights by issuing an alias warrant of arrest without the required Certification to File Action and without prior notice to the accused. Whether the respondent judge committed irregularities in the handling of the cash bail posted by the accused, specifically the failure to issue an official receipt. Whether the respondent judge's practice of issuing orders by telephone is irregular and constitutes a violation of procedural rules. Whether the respondent judge is liable for lapses in the supervision of his court personnel.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found the respondent judge guilty of violation of Circular No. 26-97 and Section 6, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Court, and imposed a fine of P11,000.00, with a warning against repetition of similar offenses. The Court dismissed the charges of gross ignorance of the law and violation of human rights.
Ratio Decidendi
On the charge of issuing an alias warrant of arrest without the required Certification to File Action and prior notice: The Court found no merit in this contention. The records showed that a Certification to File Action was attached to the complaint. Furthermore, preliminary examination is not an essential part of due process and can be conducted by a municipal judge prior to the issuance of a warrant of arrest, either in the presence or absence of the accused. The respondent judge conducted a personal examination of the complainant and his witness under oath, which was reduced to writing. There is also no right to preliminary investigation in cases triable by inferior courts. On the alleged irregularities in handling the cash bail and failure to issue an official receipt: The Court Administrator's report indicated that the accused's payment of the cash bond was properly receipted, and the original copies of the receipts were attached to the case record. However, the Court noted that Circular No. 26-97 directs that the original official receipt should be released to the payor. The respondent judge, as presiding judge-designate, was found culpable for lapses in supervision for failing to ensure compliance with this circular by his Clerk of Court. On the practice of issuing orders by telephone: The Court found this practice irregular. Municipal Circuit Trial Courts are courts of record, and their proceedings must be in writing, signed by the judge, and filed with the clerk of court. Even if an order relayed through telephone is reduced to writing, it cannot be considered officially rendered if not signed by the judge. The respondent judge should refrain from such practice, despite his good intentions due to the remote location of the court. On lapses in supervision of court employees: The Court agreed with the Court Administrator that the respondent judge was culpable for lapses in supervision, specifically concerning the non-compliance with Circular No. 26-97 regarding the issuance of official receipts and for issuing orders through the telephone. These lapses, while not amounting to gross ignorance of the law, warranted administrative sanctions.
Main Doctrine
Judges are culpable for lapses in the supervision of court employees, resulting in non-compliance with Supreme Court issuances, and for issuing orders relayed over the telephone, as these practices are irregular and violate the principle that court proceedings must be in writing and signed by the judge.