Re: Habitual Absenteeism of Bertulfo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Sangguniang Bayan of Isabel, Leyte requested the transfer of the official station of the 10th Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Merida-Isabel from Merida to Isabel, Leyte. The Supreme Court granted this request via a Resolution dated July 31, 2002, but directed Judge Delia Bertulfo and the court personnel to explain why they had already transferred their office and commenced holding court sessions in Isabel prior to the Court's permission. Procedural History: In compliance, the court personnel admitted to holding office in Isabel, Leyte, citing the poor condition of the Merida courthouse, the higher number of pending cases in Isabel, and the practice of hearing cases in their respective locations. The matter was referred to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for evaluation. The OCA recommended that Judge Bertulfo be fined P3,000.00 and the personnel be reprimanded for failing to seek prior permission. The Court later required Judge Bertulfo to show cause why she should not be disciplined for failing to explain her actions. Judge Bertulfo submitted a compliance, stating she had already submitted an explanation and that she held court sessions in both Isabel and Merida to avoid inconvenience to litigants, a practice of her predecessor. The Petition: The case was again referred to the OCA, which reiterated its previous recommendation. The Supreme Court found the OCA's recommendation well-taken.
Issue(s)
Whether the transfer of court sessions and case records by Judge Bertulfo and court personnel from Merida to Isabel, Leyte, without prior authority from the Supreme Court, constitutes a violation of administrative orders and warrants disciplinary action. Whether Judge Bertulfo complied with the Court's directive to explain why she was holding court sessions in Isabel without prior permission.
Ruling
Judge Delia N. Bertulfo is found guilty of simple misconduct and is FINED P3,000.00. The court personnel of MCTC, Merida-Isabel, Leyte are REPRIMANDED for their failure to obtain prior permission from the Court before holding office and court sessions at Isabel, Leyte. Respondents are warned that repetition of the same or similar offenses shall be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of unauthorized transfer of court sessions and records: The Court held that the unilateral and unauthorized act of Judge Bertulfo and her court personnel in transferring court sessions and case records from Merida to Isabel without prior authority from the Supreme Court is a clear violation of Administrative Order No. 33 dated June 13, 1978, as reiterated under Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended. This administrative order designated Merida, Leyte, as the official station of the 10th MCTC Merida-Isabel, Leyte. Judges and court personnel are mandated to be mindful of the circulars and orders of the Supreme Court to ensure the speedy, sound, and efficient dispensation of justice. The Court exercises administrative supervision over all courts and court personnel as provided under Section 6, Article VIII of the Constitution, and adherence to its directives is paramount. The reasons provided by the court personnel, such as the poor condition of the courthouse and the caseload distribution, do not justify bypassing the established procedure for seeking official permission for such a significant transfer. On the issue of compliance with the directive to explain: While Judge Bertulfo claimed to have submitted an explanation, the Court's subsequent resolution requiring her to show cause indicates that her initial explanation was either not received or deemed insufficient by the Court. Her subsequent compliance, asserting that she held sessions in both locations and that it was a practice of her predecessor, did not absolve her from the initial transgression of proceeding with the transfer without prior authorization. The Court's directive was specific: to explain why she was holding sessions in Isabel without prior permission, not merely to state her practice or the reasons for the perceived necessity of the transfer.
Main Doctrine
The unilateral and unauthorized act of a judge and court personnel in transferring court sessions and case records without prior authority from the Supreme Court is a violation of administrative orders and constitutes simple misconduct.