[ A.M. No. P-96-1207. October 16, 1997 ] 345 Phil. 859
EN BANC
[ A.M. No. P-96-1207. October 16, 1997 ]
JUDGE D. ROY A. MASADAO, JR., AND PATERNO S. FLORES, COMPLAINANTS, VS., GERALDINE GLORIOSO AND VICTOR BALDOZ, RESPONDENTS. D E C I S I O N
PER CURIAM:
In an Indorsement dated may 23, 1996, executive Judge Natividad G. Dizon of the Regional Trial Court, Malolos, Bulacan, forwarded to the Court Administrator, Supreme Court, the letters dated May 20 and 29, and Indorsement dated May 31, 1996 of Judge D. Roy A. Masadao, Jr.; the letter dated May 14, 1996 of Paterno S. Flores, Officer-In-Charge of Branch 9, RTC, Malolos Bulacan; the letter of resignation dated April 23, 1996 of Geraldine M. Glorioso, Court Stenographer III of Branch 9, RTC, Malolos, Bulacan; and rubber stamps allegedly used by Victor J. Baldoz, Clerk III of the same court, in making it appear that court notices were mailed to the party litigants and witnesses and that the latter were unknown at their given address.
In his letter dated May 14, 1996 Paterno S. Flores informed Executive Judge Dizon, that Geraldine Glorioso has not been reporting for duty since April 23, 1996 without filing any leave of absence; that on May 3, 1996, he received an application for leave dated April 22, 1996 covering the period from April 23, 1996 to April 30, 1996 and May 2, 1996 to May 31, 1996, signed Daily Time Record which is blank and does not refer to any particular period and a Medical Certificate dated May 2, 1996 purportedly submitted by Victor J. Baldoz; and that Victor Baldoz has been absent since April 23, 1996.
On the other hand, in his letter dated May 20 and 29, 1996, Judge Masadao, brought to the attention of the Executive Judge anomalous practices of Victor Baldoz, viz.: 1] concealing records of cases thereby precluding the Judge from acting in due time, on matters such as mailing of warrants of arrest to law enforcement agencies for implementation, transmittal of records of cases from which appeals have been interposed, etc.; 2] making it appear that he is acting at the behest of Judge Masadao and obtaining substantial amount from parties to the cases, in consideration of his assurances that resolution of the cases in their favor was forthcoming; 3] forgery of Judge Masadao’s signature in an Order purportedly authorizing the withdrawal of the P12,000 cash bail bond posted by accused for his provisional liberty; and 4] in order to favor certain accused presumably due to some material considerations, Victor Baldoz made use of several rubber stamps similar to those used by postal offices which were recovered from Victor Baldoz’ filing cabinet, to make it appear that the complainants and their witnesses are unknown in their given addresses, although the notices to them were never actually transmitted via the mails.
On July 24, 1996, this Court resolved to a] treat the letter of Judge Masadao as an administrative complaint; b] require Court Stenographer Geraldine Glorioso and Clerk III Victor Baldoz to comment thereon; c] hold the respondents under preventive suspension effective immediately until further orders from this Court; and d] hold in abeyance the resolution on the letter of resignation tendered by Court Stenographer Glorioso.
In an Indorsement dated September 6, 1996, Paterno S. Flores, Officer-In-Charge of RTC Branch 9, returned to this Court the July 24, 1996 Resolution sent to respondents with the information that the latter’s whereabouts cannot be ascertained.
On October 9, 1996, this Court referred this case to the Executive Judge of the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan for investigation, report and recommendation within ninety (90) days from receipt of the records.
The pertinent portions of Judge Natividad G. Dizon’s Report and Recommendation dated January 24, 1997 are quoted hereunder:
“The undersigned had sent notices of investigation on the following dates: December 4, 5, and 6, 1996 and January 14, 16 and 20, 1987. On December 4, 1996, Mr. Pat Flores, OIC Branch 9 appeared and informed the Investigating Judge that they cannot ascertain the whereabouts of the respondents. Mr. Flores and Judge and Judge Masadao submitted a joint affidavit to the effect that the respondents “have not been reporting for their respective duties since April 23, 1996 without submitting any leave of absence”; and that they “cannot ascertain the whereabouts of the aforenamed court employees, despite earnest efforts on our part to that end”. In January 14, 16 and 20, 1997 settings, despite notice to respondents at their home address, they both failed to appear.
“Thereafter, complainants requested the Investigating Judge to terminate the proceeding considering the failure of the respondents to file any answer and that there is now a serious need to fill up the positions they vacated to help the Court in its speedy dispensation of justice. Hence, this report.
“It is a common knowledge that Mr. Victor J. Baldoz, a married man, and Miss Geraldine Glorioso, both of Branch 9, eloped and nowhere to be found since April 23, 1996. The Known reason of the said elopement was the pregnancy of the latter, which she was trying to conceal and for them to avoid possible action from the former’s wife. Since then up to the present time, the Court could not locate them, despite diligent efforts. It came to the knowledge of the undersigned that Ms. Glorioso already gave birth. There were rumors that Mr. Baldoz is already out of the country. Both of them are now absent from their station without leave.
“Without discussing the merit of the letter-complaint filed by Hon. D. Roy A. Masadao against the anomalous practices of Mr. Baldoz, the undersigned has preferred to take this matter on the grave misconduct for being absent without leave committed by both respondents.”[1]
The Investigating Judge recommends that both respondents be dismissed from the service for grave misconduct, absence without leave and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of public service, with forfeiture of all benefits and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or service of the Government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.
It appears from the record that Geraldine Glorioso submitted to her office a letter of resignation dated April 23, 1996, addressed to the Honorable Supreme Court thru Judge D. Roy A. Masadao, Jr., The submission of the resignation letter may show that Glorioso did not intend to absent herself but to resign from her position effective at the close of office hours on April 30, 1996. While this may not be enough to warrant her dismissal for being absent without leave, the fact that Glorioso had eloped with and was impregnated by a married man should not be overlooked. Such act constitutes gross immorality which this Court would never sanction on its employees.
With regard to respondent Victor J. Baldoz, he deserves the penalty of dismissal with forfeiture of all benefits and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or office of the government.
While no sufficient evidence pertaining to respondent Baldoz’ alleged anomalous practices was presented by the complainants against respondent Baldoz, his absence without leave for a prolonged period of time, constitutes conduct prejudicial to the best interest of public service and warrants the penalty of dismissal from the service with forfeiture of benefits[2] and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or office of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.
We agree with the investigating judge that the acts committed by respondents Victor J. Baldoz and Geraldine Glorioso are prejudicial to the interest of public service. Their immoral relationship which they allowed to continue and also Baldoz’s absence from office clearly indicated disregard of decency and blatant violation of the existing provisions of the Civil Service laws, rules and regulations.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, respondents GERALDINE GLORIOSO and VICTOR BALDOZ are hereby DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of all benefits and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or service of the Government, including Government, including government owned and controlled corporation.
SO ORDERED.
Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Francisco, Hermosisima, Jr., Panganiban, and Torres, Jr., JJ., concur.
Narvasa, C.J., on leave.endant Quezon City government officials for violation of the National Building Code. “The second case filed by the herein plaintiffs against the former owners of the subject property was docketed as Civil Case No. Q-91-9681, Regional Trial Court, Branch 82, presided x x x by Honorable Salvador E. Ceguera. The second case which was for injunction to enjoin or restrain the intended demolition of the subject structures was likewise dismissed for violation of the Supreme Court Circular against forum shopping, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows: ‘In view of the foregoing, the plaintiffs are now applying before this Court for the issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction or Restraining Order. ‘In view of the aforesaid case, plaintiffs applied for a writ of preliminary injunction against the said threats of demolition made by the private respondents. Now the plaintiffs are again praying for another writ of preliminary injunction also against the threats of demolition made by the private defendants on plaintiffs’ dwellings x x x. The Honorable Aloysius C. Alday already made a ruling on the prayer for relief before this Court. They are clearly forum shopping, in search of a Court which will be favorably disposed to granting the relief they seek. This cannot be countenanced x x x. “The third case filed by herein plaintiffs is the instant case which could be dismissed also outright for being violative of the Supreme Court Circular against Forum-Shopping and also because the cause of action herein has been barred by prior judgment."[10]
Respondent judge further explained that although complainants had already perfected their appeal, he issued the questioned Order granting execution pending appeal, pursuant to Section 4, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. Moreover, he did not require the defendants in said case to post a bond since complainants’ interests were sufficiently safeguarded for the latter could always go after the properties subject of the litigation should they win in their appeal before the Court of Appeals. Respondent judge also clarified that when he received the January 2, 1996 Order of the Court of Appeals temporarily restraining him from executing his questioned Order, he did not allow the defendants in the injunction case to proceed with the scheduled demolition of complainants’ houses on that day. On January 23, 1996, defendant Borlongan filed a motion to proceed with the eviction. Complainants opposed and hearing thereon was set on January 24, 1996, as requested by complainants. However, complainants and their counsel failed to appear at the hearing of the motion. Thus, respondent judge issued an Order granting the motion for execution pending appeal since the 20-day period for the validity of the TRO already expired. On January 29, 1996, the demolition and eviction were completed and the subject property was turned over to defendant Borlongan. As to the charge that he entertains litigants in his chambers under suspicious circumstances, respondent judge explained that the same has no basis for his office and that of his eleven (11) staff consists merely of a small room with an area of only about three by four meters. Given this cramped space, it is inconceivable how he could entertain said litigants “under suspicious circumstances” within the presence and hearing distance of his entire personnel. Our evaluation of this case reveals that although the Court of Appeals found that respondent judge abused his discretion in issuing the questioned order, it was not satisfactorily shown that he acted in bad faith, with malice or in wilful disregard of a litigant’s right. As a matter of public policy, not every error or mistake of a judge in the performance of his official duties make him liable therefor. In the absence of fraud, dishonesty or corruption, the acts of a judge in his official capacity does not always amount to misconduct although such acts may be erroneous. A judge may not be disciplined for error of judgment unless there is proof that the error was made with a conscious and deliberate intent to do an injustice. Nevertheless, this is not to say that a judge need not observe due care in the performance of his functions. In the case at bar, respondent judge, in ordering the dismissal of the complaint, relied on the final rulings of this Court and the Regional Trial Court in two (2) previous cases which essentially involved the same parties and dealt with the same subject matter. Believing in good faith that the third case filed before his sala is a mere reiteration of the same issues earlier laid to rest and resolved with finality by other courts, respondent judge ordered the dismissal of the complaint. Nevertheless, although his order granting the motion to dismiss was timely appealed by complainants to the Court of Appeals, respondent judge proceeded to issue an Order directing the execution of his appealed order, which eventually resulted in the demolition of complainants’ houses. On top of this, respondent judge did not require a bond to support defendant’s application for a writ of execution. Under the circumstances, respondent judge had lost jurisdiction to entertain the motion for execution after the perfection of the appeal and after the lower court had been ordered to transmit the records of the case to the appellate court for review. Needless to state, his precipitate action on the motion for execution resulted in legal complications and hardship on the part of complainants which merits the imposition of an administrative sanction. As to the charge against respondent judge that he entertains litigants in his office under suspicious circumstances, the same is dismissed for lack of basis and merit. IN VIEW WHEREOF, respondent JUDGE EMILIO L. LEACHON, JR. is reprimanded for continuing to act in Civil Case No. Q-95-25779 when he had lost jurisdiction over the case. SO ORDERED. Regalado, (Chairman), Romero, and Torres, Jr., JJ., concur. Mendoza, J., no part because of close association with respondent.