Re: Judicial Audit Conducted in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Cagayan de Oro City
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: A judicial audit was conducted on Branch 20 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cagayan de Oro City, presided over by Judge Bonifacio M. Macabaya. The audit revealed numerous cases submitted for decision beyond the 90-day period, pending incidents unresolved beyond the reglementary period, and dormant, unacted-upon cases. Irregularities included issuing an order contrary to the Rules of Criminal Procedure regarding bail bonds and issuing twin orders for ex-parte hearings by the Branch Clerk of Court, violating procedural rules and jurisprudence. Inaccuracies were also found in the RTC's reports, and docket books were not updated regularly. Furthermore, Judge Macabaya's wife was observed to be constantly present and participating in court functions, which Judge Macabaya acknowledged as helpful. Procedural History: Following the audit, Judge Macabaya was issued directives to take corrective actions and submit reports. Despite repeated reminders and extensions, Judge Macabaya failed to fully comply with the directives from the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) and the Supreme Court for over a year. Consequently, the Supreme Court resolved to require Judge Macabaya to show cause why no disciplinary action should be taken, to decide/resolve pending cases with dispatch, and to comply with other directives, while also relieving him of his judicial and administrative functions and withholding his salaries. Judge Macabaya filed motions for reconsideration and supplemental explanations, arguing lack of due process and disputing the audit findings. The OCA recommended that Judge Macabaya be found guilty of gross misconduct and gross ignorance of the law, warranting dismissal. The Supreme Court, however, modified the penalty in light of mitigating circumstances. The Petition: This administrative matter concerns the findings of the judicial audit and the subsequent actions taken against Judge Macabaya for his alleged gross misconduct and gross ignorance of the law and procedure.
Issue(s)
Whether Judge Macabaya is guilty of gross misconduct for his repeated failure to comply with the directives of the Office of the Court Administrator and this Court. Whether Judge Macabaya is guilty of gross ignorance of the law and procedure. Whether the penalties of dismissal from the service and forfeiture of retirement benefits are warranted, considering mitigating circumstances.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found Judge Macabaya guilty of gross misconduct and gross ignorance of the law and procedure. However, considering mitigating circumstances, the Court imposed a fine equivalent to two (2) months' salary, with a stern warning against repetition of similar offenses. Judge Macabaya was also ordered to submit judgments/decisions/resolutions in specific cases, create and update certain court books, ensure accuracy of monthly reports, and disallow his wife from accessing court records and minimize her presence in court.
Ratio Decidendi
On the charge of gross misconduct for repeated failure to comply with directives: The Court found that Judge Macabaya repeatedly failed to comply with the directives of the OCA and the Supreme Court, despite ample opportunities to be heard and explain his side. His assertion that his right to due process was violated was dismissed, as due process only requires an opportunity to be heard, which he was given through various letters and resolutions. His failure to comply promptly and completely with lawful directives was considered insubordination and disrespect for the Court's authority. The Court emphasized that resolutions of the Supreme Court are not mere requests and must be complied with promptly and completely, as failure to do so betrays a recalcitrant streak and contempt for the system. The Court noted that Judge Macabaya only began questioning the audit findings after his salaries were withheld, and his arguments lacked credence against the clear and well-supported findings of the audit team. On the charge of gross ignorance of the law and procedure: The Court affirmed the audit team's findings that Judge Macabaya's Order dated November 22, 2011, in Criminal Case No. 2001-888, and his twin Orders dated September 26, 2006, in Criminal Case Nos. 2000-260, 2000-316, 2002-098, and 2002-100, were violative of the Constitution and the law. Specifically, his order regarding the expired bail bond contravened Section 2(a) of Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. Furthermore, directing the Branch Clerk of Court to receive evidence ex-parte in criminal proceedings demonstrated gross ignorance of the rules, as such delegation is not permitted in criminal cases, unlike in ordinary civil actions and special proceedings. The Court reiterated that a judge owes the public proficiency in the law and must maintain professional competence, as ignorance of the law can be the mainspring of injustice. On the penalty and mitigating circumstances: While the OCA recommended dismissal, the Court considered mitigating circumstances. These included Judge Macabaya's nearly 31 years of government service with no prior administrative infractions, the substantial number of new cases (761) he inherited, his appointment as acting presiding judge of another branch in a different city, the assignment of cases from inhibited judges, and the fire that gutted the Hall of Justice, which may have contributed to difficulties in resolving cases. These circumstances, coupled with his willingness to dispose of remaining inherited cases, led the Court to impose a fine equivalent to two months' salary with a stern warning, rather than dismissal.
Main Doctrine
A judge found guilty of gross misconduct for repeated failure to comply with directives and gross ignorance of the law and procedure, despite mitigating circumstances such as long years of service and heavy caseload, may be meted a penalty less than dismissal, such as a fine, but with a stern warning against repetition.